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

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#191

Post by baranul »

nine_k wrote: post #82
alexvitkov wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the harsh truth is that none of those things are actually big issues that would justify learning slightly different syntax. The syntax has nothing to do with it, you already know the syntax. I'm fairly confident most people reading this comment can program in this language right now, without opening the docs. The reasons I won't be using it are: 1. It's a source to source transpiler - even when done nearly…

How does Zig look from where you sit?

Zig has been around for 9 years, and it looks like 1.0 is not even in the cards. Seeing a lot of flux, with lots of unresolved issues (per its GitHub).

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#192

Post by lmm »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #170
lmm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". The people who use Go despite its issues are using it because of the tiling and the massive Google backing. Neither of which this has. Someone who wants a language that implements some of the good ideas of the 1970s and is willing to leave Go for that already has many established…

"tiling"? what do you mean by that?

Tooling, sorry, was on my phone.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#193

Post by alfiedotwtf »

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.

> that the Go team exhibits engineering genius, taste, and particularity that is rare to find in our industry

> The generics in Go have turned out dogshite

Pick one.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#194

Post by bmacho »

howenterprisey wrote: post #71
blixt wrote: post #3

This is quite beautiful. It hides several ugly warts of Go without necessarily adding more complexity. Result instead of (T, error) and ? for propagation is just so nice. Structured enums is something I find myself needing all the time (and writing less self-explanatory code due to the lack of it). Option instead of nil and zero values (which builds upon structured enum support) is what got me to say "yes please!" Ho…

I think it would be cool if we had something like this except as a superset.

That would be cool; although I don't think that being a superset would be that useful.

I think just being able to use borgo and go files in the same project is more than enough for all practical purposes. Borgo and go living in the same file, or go files running as borgo files would be cool, but would have no practical benefits?

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#195

Post by snthpy »

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've been planning to use it, because of all the reasons you mentioned and because I prefer Rust but I also want access to the Go ecosystem and the Charm/Bubbletea TUI world in particular.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#196

Post by snthpy »

jjallen wrote: post #36

This is interesting except for the fact that there is no license. This makes this "language" technically only usable by the creator? This is what GH says about no license being included. I almost think they should make including a license obligatory. > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code an…

+1 on the license.

What would be the point of compiling to Rust? Just use Rust in that case.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#197

Post by tucnak »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #193
tucnak wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> that the Go team exhibits engineering genius, taste, and particularity that is rare to find in our industry > The generics in Go have turned out dogshite Pick one.

I guess it's fine for what it enables, Tree[T] of some kind basically. But we had that with codegen already.. People who really needed trees, could do that forever. However, the issue is the "unwashed"—like they said in adjacent comment—putting them everywhere now, where an interface would be more fitting. Hopefully I'm explaining in terms that you can comprehend.

This is dogshite because I have to fork a bunch of stuff to actually use it!

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#198

Post by darthrupert »

thomasmg wrote: post #102
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust with GC wouldn't look much like rust anymore.

I think people want is Rust, but simpler. At least by default. I could imagine people want a programming language that is: memory safe, without GC pauses. A bit slower by default than C / Rust, but with the _option_ to make it as fast. Then easier to learn, less vendor lock-in than Swift, and a modern syntax (no null pointers etc). I don't think such a language exists currently.

Nim, but whether the syntax is modern is questionable.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#199

Post by ksec »

Aldipower wrote: post #78
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…

JavaScript had Netscape behind it, TypeScript has Microsoft behind it, Rust had Mozilla behind it, Go has Google behind it, Java had Sun behind it, C++ had AT&T behind it, and so on.. Borgo? Cannot think about much languages that haven't any bigger company behind it. PHP maybe? To an extend Python? But today Python good pushed by the big companies of the AI hype.

Google and Academia pushed Python in the 00s.

>Cannot think about much languages that haven't any bigger company behind it.

Ruby.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#200

Post by alfiedotwtf »

tucnak wrote: post #197
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that the Go team exhibits engineering genius, taste, and particularity that is rare to find in our industry > The generics in Go have turned out dogshite Pick one.

I guess it's fine for what it enables, Tree[T] of some kind basically. But we had that with codegen already.. People who really needed trees, could do that forever. However, the issue is the "unwashed"—like they said in adjacent comment—putting them everywhere now, where an interface would be more fitting. Hopefully I'm explaining in terms that you can comprehend. This is dogshite because I have to fork a bunch of st…

I used go for about 3 years, so yeah I understand... but I can't believe you actually like copy-paste/codegen more than actual native language facilities. Mind blowing to be honest.
Post reply on HN