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

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#171

Post by Too »

taosx wrote: post #5

That's very close to what I want, I wonder if we'd ever have customization for programming languages on the client side but when pushing to git it would get transpiled to the most common subset. A small change I would have loved at first glance would be the double colons (::) for namespace path along with explicit extraction and pub for public types.

This is almost what editing Java in IntelliJ is like. The most verbose multi line constructs are minified to only appear as one line on your screen.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#172

Post by Too »

fsndz wrote: post #101

I wonder if there will ever be another programming language on top of the most high level languages we currently have (like to python what python was for C)

Higher level easily end up more domain specific. Think SQL or other query languages. Future ones will likely be designed around AI somehow.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#173

Post by pjmlp »

yearolinuxdsktp wrote: post #148
oersted wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree with you to a degree, but let's not forget the monumental successes that are TypeScript and Kotlin. There have been lots of such languages that transpiled to JavaScript or worked on the JVM, adding nicer syntax and features. Many of them went nowhere, but quite a few of them did get widely adopted. Off the top of my head, CoffeeScript was also relatively popular for a while, and Clojure builds on top of bo…

Kotlin so crazy with its default-closed, default-final method approach. Do these people even ship software? Or do they ship textbooks? People are acting likely they are writing chapters of Biblical verse with their code—they knew everything better than the user, including knowing what to hide. It’s OK/good to have extensible code, even if the original did not intend it. To have every class be final by default and hid…

Yes, many of us don't believe on monkey patching.

JetBrains and Android manage to ship Kotlin software.

Unfortunately software architecture isn't part of most bookcamps, or many devs that rather code away.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#174

Post by pjmlp »

diggan wrote: post #110
cwalv wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind the fact that Go has Google behind it is the main reason it caught on (and quickly). It would have been completely ignored otherwise.

That + the individuals involved. Without the company backing + different (not already-"famous" [programmer famous]) people involved, it would have been completely ignored.

Note that the same individuals weren't that lucky with Plan 9, Inferno and Limbo, or Oberon.

Employeer vibes matter.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#175

Post by pjmlp »

dizhn wrote: post #169
jyounker wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your recollection of Python is a bit off. Python wasn't really obscure or developed in silence. If you needed a glue language for a unix system, then there were really only three choices: Perl 5, TCL/tk, and Python. If you worked in a career where you needed a glue language, then you were at the very least aware that Python existed.

Python got a massive push from Google too. At one point (Early 2000s?) they were hiring a ton of python developers.

What kicked Python on 2000's was Zope, everyone was into Zope, like Rails almost a decade later.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#176

Post by pjmlp »

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.

And now Elm is gone, as its author failed to capitalise on it, to the point of having a talk about lack of funding in FOSS.

Technically not dead, rather stagnant, a difference that hardly matters regarding adoption and ecosystem future.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#177

Post by Too »

onionisafruit wrote: post #64
kbd wrote: post #56

Go deserves to get TypeScripted. Another effort in this vein is Go+ https://github.com/goplus/gop

How do you figure this. Javascript got TypeScripted because it was forced on us by browsers. Is there an equivalent api that forces the use of Go? None that I know of. Maybe there are some domains where you need access to specialized Go packages that would be hard to recreate in another language. I see that sometimes with C and C++, but I haven’t seen it with Go. As a happy Gopher, I’m aware I probably have blind spo…

Go provides excellent packaging, and runtime with good gc and goroutines. Those are some of the biggest investments to be made for a language.

Imagine you want all those three features without the original syntax vomit. Transpiling is a great way to leverage the underlying engine. Similar to how many other languages build on top of LLVM.

So while there is no strict lockin as js had with browsers, achieving a runtime on par with go is a huge moat to cross on your own.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#178

Post by pjmlp »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #108
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…

Fitting a C compiler on a PDP-11 was an impressive achievement, but as a language it was a poor foundation to build anything reliable, and we still live with the consequences.

Especially taking into account the decade of systems languages predating that feat, and everything else happening outside Bell Labs.

Had UNIX been a commercial product from the get go, and most likely C wouldn't have taken off as it did.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#179

Post by pjmlp »

tucnak wrote: post #154
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that the Go team exhibits engineering genius, taste, and particularity that is rare to find in our industry Those geniuses fought against implementing generics for almost 10 years.

And they were right. The generics in Go have turned out dogshite... I try to avoid them at all costs because besides simple data structures like Trees and so on, they're just more trouble. Go was not meant to have generics.

Self imposed fault, by ignoring computing history since 1976.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#180

Post by pjmlp »

restlake wrote: post #62
arethuza wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like C#? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/memory-and...

You are correct, C# straddles that line better than any other language right now imo thanks to the APIs you linked. There was a good write up about this Rust vs C# Span comparison on HN a few weeks ago but the link escapes me

D would fit in as well, if the community wasn't so tiny.
Post reply on HN