11–20 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
here is the "goal" page: https://rhombus-lang.org/goal.html (with related paper & talk)
Thanks. It’s nice to see at least a few in the FP community recognize that Lisp dialects, with their parenthesis-ridden S-expressions, are hard to read and write.
This actually looks good. It's like a less-obtuse Haskell. At a glance the features seem to be just the right mix of functional programming paradigms and standard imperative programming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. It’s nice to see at least a few in the FP community recognize that Lisp dialects, with their parenthesis-ridden S-expressions, are hard to read and write.
I'd say it's more like "we've been teaching Scheme for decades, and we just have to admit that most people don't like S-expressions."
That said mathematical code is one of the few cases where I don't like s-exp as much. Having easy access to "real" macros tends to make up for it, but I just don't find infix plus functional very convenient when number crunching. It's likely a skill issue on my part but that doesn't change the end result.
This actually looks good. It's like a less-obtuse Haskell. At a glance the features seem to be just the right mix of functional programming paradigms and standard imperative programming.
The language is basically Racket, which is a Scheme at its core. There's very little in common with a language like Haskell.
This actually looks good. It's like a less-obtuse Haskell. At a glance the features seem to be just the right mix of functional programming paradigms and standard imperative programming.
The other day I saw someone describe writing Haskell as “programming with your elbows while listening to math rock”, which is awesome. I can see the need for a less-obtuse Haskell
It's the first time in more than 10 years that I actually feel like trying a new language. The last time was Elixir. Since then I had to use Lua (hobby project) and Python (work) but I don't enjoy them much. I would have skipped them if I hadn't have to use them. Before Elixir I enjoyed Ruby, before that it's been Perl 5 in the 90s. Everything else I used in that period and before was because I had to (C, Java, PHP, JavaScript/Node) and I skipped many other mainstream languages because they didn't look nice to work with (Go, Rust, TypeScript.) I still have to see what's writing and running a Rhombus programs looks like so I might discover that it's not so nice after all. I'm hopeful.
This actually looks good. It's like a less-obtuse Haskell. At a glance the features seem to be just the right mix of functional programming paradigms and standard imperative programming.
What is the relation to Haskell? The language is basically Racket, which is a Scheme at its core. There's very little in common with a language like Haskell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
here is the "goal" page: https://rhombus-lang.org/goal.html (with related paper & talk)
Thanks. It’s nice to see at least a few in the FP community recognize that Lisp dialects, with their parenthesis-ridden S-expressions, are hard to read and write.
- M-expressions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-expression)
- Lisp 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LISP_2)
- Dylan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_(programming_language)
- Wolfram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_Language)
- Julia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language))
However the large majority of Lisp folks end up using plain old Common Lisp and Scheme with their S-expressions, because it is easier, it is like telling written languages with symbols are harder than those with latin characters, it is only hard to read and write until one actually learns them.