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

Rhombus Language

rhombus-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 161 posts

Re: Rhombus Language

#51

Post by fc417fc802 »

eviks wrote: post #31
rscho wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very easy. You could do it yourself after 5 min of reading ;-)

That time would only be enough to read the overview, go through the examples, click on the "uniquely customizable" link hoping to see the answer and then be flooded with the garbage digital tokens of the scientific world - 100+ references...

True. If you are new to Lisps it will require substantially more than 5 minutes to learn about the different types of macros. For Racket in general you might start here.[0][1] For Rhombus probably here.[2][3]

I'm not clear what your asking about regarding the ellipses though.

[0] https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/macros.html

[1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/Reader_Extension.html

[2] https://docs.racket-lang.org/rhombus-meta/index.html

[3] https://docs.racket-lang.org/rhombus/Syntax_Objects_and_Macr...

Re: Rhombus Language

#52

Post by eviks »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #51
eviks wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That time would only be enough to read the overview, go through the examples, click on the "uniquely customizable" link hoping to see the answer and then be flooded with the garbage digital tokens of the scientific world - 100+ references...

True. If you are new to Lisps it will require substantially more than 5 minutes to learn about the different types of macros. For Racket in general you might start here.[0][1] For Rhombus probably here.[2][3] I'm not clear what your asking about regarding the ellipses though. [0] https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/macros.html [1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/Reader_Extension.html [2] https://docs.racket-lan…

The ellipses was about replacing 3 ascii symbols 1. 2. 3. with 1 unicode symbol 1… and have it serve the exact language function (repetitions)

Re: Rhombus Language

#53

Post by HexDecOctBin »

lygaret wrote: post #4

This is racket's [rhombus], which might be an interesting second link here; it's a scheme, underneath, with the full power of Racket libs available. [`shrubbery`], the replacement for s-exprs, is pretty interesting, expanding s-expr simply with grouping, and then a separate infix-pass on top. I've been playing with using it as the basis for a separate language; it's in an interesting place in the AST space, especiall…

I really wish they had kept the old C-like Honu syntax rather that the Python-like Shrubbery. If Rhombus is supposed to be an educational language, copy-pasting and trying out new code is going to be a important part of ecosystem, and indentation based syntax is not ideal for that.

Re: Rhombus Language

#54

Post by Y_Y »

I've been cautiously optimistic about Rhombus since the initial "Racket 2" controversy. I'd have preferred they went with something more like Wisp or Wraith, but it could be a lot worse.

I am somewhat troubled by tricks that are "too magic", like this example from front page:

    class Posn(x, y)
 
    fun flip_all([Posn(x, y), ...]):
      [Posn(y, x), ...]
 
    flip_all([Posn(1, 2), Posn(3, 4)])
    // ⇒ [Posn(2, 1), Posn(4, 3)]
Why should the later Posns be flipped? That's certainly not what I would expect.

(Then again being too magic is working well for Python, e.g. that a<b<c thing)

Re: Rhombus Language

#55

Post by dominicrose »

cies wrote: post #46
pmontra wrote: post #18

The examples on the home page are a nice way to quickly show the features of a language. I'll check the documentation to see how to work with files, make HTTP calls, parse JSON. 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 had…

I found Kotlin a "typed Ruby" (I found Ruby a "sane Perl"). Rust seems pretty nice to work with (good DX) in it's domain: close to the metal programs were every tick counts. The main DX issue with it would be compile times. Go's awful to me from a DX perspective as it is lacks proper error handling. Compile times are great though. Maybe OCaml is a good fit for me (and you!). Fast compile times and good error handling…

Interesting. I learned Ruby a long time ago because a Perl expert told me Ruby was getting good. I like Typescript because it's really easy to read and maintain without breaking anything. But you can't do this: `next x.map { _1 + 3 }.sum if sth`. I guess I should give Kotlin a try then.

Re: Rhombus Language

#56

Post by tgv »

kalekold wrote: post #38
timkq wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TypeScript & Rust don't "look nice to work with" because they force you to write maintainable code that doesn't just stop working because of a random runtime error. In my opinion, Go looks nice to work with but actually is a hidden monster full of footguns.

> Go looks nice to work with but actually is a hidden monster full of footguns. Really? Me and my team been using it for years with no problems whatsoever.

While Typescript has the gaping hole that is typing external data. Your code can't enforce that in TS, but in Go you're forced to.

I do admit Go has an easily found foot gun: nil pointers. It's a small one though, in comparison to the original problems with nil pointers. More stubbing your toe than shooting your foot.

Re: Rhombus Language

#57

Post by pjmlp »

timkq wrote: post #29
pmontra wrote: post #18

The examples on the home page are a nice way to quickly show the features of a language. I'll check the documentation to see how to work with files, make HTTP calls, parse JSON. 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 had…

TypeScript & Rust don't "look nice to work with" because they force you to write maintainable code that doesn't just stop working because of a random runtime error. In my opinion, Go looks nice to work with but actually is a hidden monster full of footguns.

Typescript is like C++ and Objective-C for C.

Technically, it provides an improved type system that offers the tooling to write safer code.

In practice, plenty of folks just rename the file extension and keep coding as they always did.

Re: Rhombus Language

#59

Post by norman784 »

Y_Y wrote: post #54

I've been cautiously optimistic about Rhombus since the initial "Racket 2" controversy. I'd have preferred they went with something more like Wisp or Wraith, but it could be a lot worse. I am somewhat troubled by tricks that are "too magic", like this example from front page: class Posn(x, y) fun flip_all([Posn(x, y), ...]): [Posn(y, x), ...] flip_all([Posn(1, 2), Posn(3, 4)]) // ⇒ [Posn(2, 1), Posn(4, 3)] Why should…

Care you to elaborate on Racket 2 controversy? I don't follow the language, but I'm aware of it, so I didn't learn about the controversy.

Re: Rhombus Language

#60

Post by norman784 »

virgilp wrote: post #24
orthoxerox wrote: post #21

I am going to play the devil's advocate. What problem does Rhombus solve? An approachable syntax is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for mass adoption. According to the goals page, its other major feature is an extensible syntax. Why should I prefer it over, say, Scala? Scala has syntax macros, it runs on the JVM and can access Java's massive library of libraries, it has been used to implement large and co…

This is not playing devil's advocate - this is a _VERY_ legitimate question. I'll go further and say that without a "killer app" (and/or strong corporate backer), a language doesn't typically take off nowadays, regardless how good it is ([edit] but to the point of another commenter - I do agree that "exploration" is a good enough reason; one doesn't need to write languages only with the goal of making them popular).…

> Typescript: V8/Node.js / javascript on the server-side

I would dare to say that more people use Typescript in frontend than in backend projects, so basically Typescript killer "app" is the browser, because you are forced to use Javascript, but JS does not scale that good for mid, big projects.

Post reply on HN