Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Borgo Programming Language

borgo-lang.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 204 posts

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#111

Post by samatman »

nine_k wrote: post #84
renox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right nobody will use it: it's a one man language are you going to bet your codebase on it? It probably doesn't have any tooling, debugggers.. Are the error messages from the compiler good?

Elm is also a one-man language, but it enjoyed some popularity. Zig has been a one-man language for some time, but it's got traction, following, and more contributors. Syntax squiggles are not very important, but other language features, like a good design and removing whole classes of bugs, are.

Zig is a BDFL language, but it's far from a one-man language. There's a Zig Foundation with several full-time paid contributors, with a larger design team who collaborate on the big picture.

If Andrew Kelly were kidnapped by aliens tomorrow, Zig would continue. I think that's the dividing point, when the bus factor is no longer one.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#112

Post by skinkestek »

nine_k wrote: post #84
renox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right nobody will use it: it's a one man language are you going to bet your codebase on it? It probably doesn't have any tooling, debugggers.. Are the error messages from the compiler good?

Elm is also a one-man language, but it enjoyed some popularity. Zig has been a one-man language for some time, but it's got traction, following, and more contributors. Syntax squiggles are not very important, but other language features, like a good design and removing whole classes of bugs, are.

I've had to deal with Elm alone (the original devs had left, leaving next to no docs, because who needs docs with such a beautiful language I guess).

Thankfully I've been able to scramble some syntax highlighting support and reverse engineer how to start and run it, and after a while it actually kind of makes sense.

But I am an engineer, not an artist, and elm code will not survive me in the code base if I can avoid it (unless there are teams of Elm programmers at a place).

Elm might remove classes of bugs, but when there is not a single developer except me who manages to wrestle with it, though luck. TypeScript also removes entire classes of bugs, and it does so while being well documented and easy to understand for devs from other mainstream languages so the other devs won't come running my way everytime they have to fix something written in it.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#113

Post by etse »

timeon wrote: post #54
darthrupert wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust with GC is actually what many people want. And by that I don't mean using Rc everywhere nor do I even mean making a GC library and then using GC everywhere. I mean having the runtime handle all memory things with you having to think about it only when some extremely rare corner case breaks.

When companies move from Go it is usually because of GC. Tho point of Rust is to be safe language without GC. Even if not perfect, best thing about Rust is borrow checker and border between safe/unsafe. You can use several other languages, like Ocaml, if you want Rust with GC.

I’m curious which are the well known projects or products that have ported or converted away from Go. Anyone have a shortlist?

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#114

Post by skinkestek »

neonsunset wrote: post #106
nine_k wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our programmers are Googlers ... They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language Sounds pretty damning, I'd say. This of course illustrates why Go is called "systems PHP". > how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. I strongly prefer open-source tools at the base of my stack. Not as much because of the money but more because of the level of trust. Things should be inspectable.

That's what .NET is for (both C# and F#) - it has no private implementations (Unity does not count :P). Much more competent compiler too and smaller native binaries. Something you could confidently use in production.

Then you have to deal with:

- .Net devs (they are almost as annoying as us Java/Kotlin devs)

- a language and ecosystem that consistently sacrifice backwards compatibility (contrary to us who have features sacrificed for backwards compatibility at every single step)

- you have to live without the JVM ecosystem (on this I have no self deprecating comment, C# is a better language, but the ecosystem, from libraries to build system to IDEs is something I always miss when I work in .Net.)

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#115

Post by IshKebab »

kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

I don't think that's why nobody will use it. The real reasons are:

1. People who want Rust will just use Rust. You can keep your Rust code simple if you want, most of the time. I think most people that object to Go's issues have moved on from Go by now. Kind of like how safe C++ has no chance because most of the people that get it have left C++ already.

2. It's clearly not mature. Not many people jump on one man languages. If this was backed by a large company I suspect the story would be different.

Still, it seems to be tastefully designed. Might have a chance I guess.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#116

Post by neonsunset »

skinkestek wrote: post #114
neonsunset wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what .NET is for (both C# and F#) - it has no private implementations (Unity does not count :P). Much more competent compiler too and smaller native binaries. Something you could confidently use in production.

Then you have to deal with: - .Net devs (they are almost as annoying as us Java/Kotlin devs) - a language and ecosystem that consistently sacrifice backwards compatibility (contrary to us who have features sacrificed for backwards compatibility at every single step) - you have to live without the JVM ecosystem (on this I have no self deprecating comment, C# is a better language, but the ecosystem, from libraries to b…

“Contrary to us”? I can’t agree with this attitude.

.NET maintains excellent backwards compatibility, C# and F# even more so. The changes either affect frameworks and libraries, which you can often update independently or are easily addressed. Most projects since .NET 5 only ever had to bump the target version and rebuild to move forward (notable exception: in .NET 6 ASP.NET Core introduced simplified API for application setup which required changes).

Neither JVM nor Go have the degree of low-level capabilities .NET provides first-class support for. And F# integrates in an easier way into existing C# solutions than Kotlin does into Java ones.

It is the GC-based Rust alternative many are looking for but are overlooking due to bias from the past.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#119

Post by skinkestek »

desumeku wrote: post #51
tucnak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> made by morons for morons The creators of Go have also built the foundation of everything you take for granted. The real "harsh truth" here, of course, is that the Go team exhibits engineering genius, taste, and particularity that is rare to find in our industry, such that the likes of Rust "death by committee" people may only dream of. The long-lasting obsession that Rust people have with Go and the Go team has be…

People seriously act like Rob Pike's quote was about appealing to the lowest common denominator of programmers possible without realizing that the functional programming concepts they hold so dearly have been lacking for 50 years in the world of C/C++ where it's creators came from. They are so quick to frustration over the fact that the some languages don't act like they think it should and don't require the extraneo…

> They are so quick to frustration over the fact that the some languages don't act like they think it should and don't require the extraneous baggage of higher-order programming in order to quickly be productive in

Higher order functions often seems to be a way to complicate otherwise easy to read code. Kotlin manages to do it reasonably well, in Javascript I has beem behind some of my absolutely worst debugging experiences.

The problem with Go, as far as I have seen is not about functional programming, but rather about things like making a point out of not supporting generics for years.

For anyone who has experienced the Java 1.4 to Java 5 transition, and all the cruft it removed I cannot see how any of them can willingly accept a language that made a point out of being clumsy so one had to do it the old clumsy way agaim.

Or how a language that us supposedly a good fit for web backends had (don't know if it have now, I've given up) no simple way in the standard library or any popular templating solution to say in a template that it should be included in a bigger template, thereby forcing the code to know about things that belong in the design world.

I.e. to have

- a common header with dynamic title

- a dynamic part between

- and common footer

the correct way last I checked seemed to be to string them together like a php script from the late nineties.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#120

Post by desumeku »

pjmlp wrote: post #94
nine_k wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because Go is not a VM?

Java compiles to native code for two decades now, it has always been a matter of how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them…

"We hire working-class college graduates from the normal population, and not ivy league graduates who have the time to waste on unproductive academic research languages that see no industrial use."

Is this what is so damning about Go? The constant reposting of this quote as some sort of attack on Go's validity and reputation reeks of nothing but classism.

Post reply on HN