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

Cyberscript

cyberscript.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Cyberscript

#51

Post by conorcleary »

rirze wrote: post #44
ericpauley wrote: post #23

I think (outside hobbies) new programming language development is basically dead at this point. The major use cases have been filled, and there are more forces than ever towards using a battle-tested language with a massive ecosystem. Further, less and less code is being written or read by humans so the actual language ergonomics matter less than ever to those who would fund new language creation.

This gives me "why build dropbox" energy. We never know when a revelation or unmet customer niche arrives around the corner. Never bet against it.

...to have C0ndi on the board to allow the gov't complete access and data retention for ever and ever under a mountain

Re: Cyberscript

#52

Post by blarg1 »

ModernMech wrote: post #30
tjpnz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90s/2000s people also used to shorten cybersex to cyber. I guess if they wanted to have fun with it they could add a "Wanna Cyber?" in place of the usual "Try ".

"I put on my robe and wizard hat"

oh behave

Re: Cyberscript

#54

Post by josephg »

tosti wrote: post #43
josephg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. UTF-8 is the right default. Pure ASCII strings are rarely needed in modern software. Unless you know that you need ASCII, your strings should support unicode.

Internet Messages have been ASCII since Internet Messages.

True, but humans have been speaking non English languages since humans.

Re: Cyberscript

#55

Post by bitwize »

tjpnz wrote: post #7
SchizoDuckie wrote: post #5

This is by far the most stupid name for a new language imaginable. Shortening it to "cyber" on the landing page too.. When will devs learn that being able to search for a term on the open internet without having it polluted by normal language is kind of important

In the 90s/2000s people also used to shorten cybersex to cyber. I guess if they wanted to have fun with it they could add a "Wanna Cyber?" in place of the usual "Try ".

These days "cyber" undecorated usually implies "-security", muddying those waters further.

Re: Cyberscript

#56

Post by tosti »

josephg wrote: post #54
tosti wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet Messages have been ASCII since Internet Messages.

True, but humans have been speaking non English languages since humans.

The first networked computers predate unicode by several decades. Back then, the word length could be 8 but not neccesarily. All sorts of different encodings existed and a given common standard wasn't yet agreed upon

It's not like internet standards don't know there are other languages, it's just that they documented how things were done at the time. Some legacy has remained ever since.

Re: Cyberscript

#57

Post by tosti »

jcranmer wrote: post #45
tosti wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet Messages have been ASCII since Internet Messages.

Most internet protocols these days have shifted to UTF-8.

Perhaps so, and that's a good development imho. However, the most notorious of all, HTTP, has not afaik. Different encodings have been suggested including UTF-8. I'm not entirely sure why those proposals weren't implemented, but the dot-com bubble at the time might've had something to do with it.

Re: Cyberscript

#58

Post by josephg »

tosti wrote: post #56
josephg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but humans have been speaking non English languages since humans.

The first networked computers predate unicode by several decades. Back then, the word length could be 8 but not neccesarily. All sorts of different encodings existed and a given common standard wasn't yet agreed upon It's not like internet standards don't know there are other languages, it's just that they documented how things were done at the time. Some legacy has remained ever since.

Sure, but most code doesn't interact with raw packets. Legacy, ascii-only internet standards probably make up much less than 1% of new lines of code written today. Programming languages should support this use case. But not at the expense of the other 99% of software.

Unicode-aware strings are the right choice for 99% of code. The last 1% should be a special case.

Re: Cyberscript

#59

Post by tosti »

josephg wrote: post #58
tosti wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first networked computers predate unicode by several decades. Back then, the word length could be 8 but not neccesarily. All sorts of different encodings existed and a given common standard wasn't yet agreed upon It's not like internet standards don't know there are other languages, it's just that they documented how things were done at the time. Some legacy has remained ever since.

Sure, but most code doesn't interact with raw packets. Legacy, ascii-only internet standards probably make up much less than 1% of new lines of code written today. Programming languages should support this use case. But not at the expense of the other 99% of software. Unicode-aware strings are the right choice for 99% of code. The last 1% should be a special case.

Raw packets? Legacy? Have you've ever talked to anything over a socket?

You don't need a raw socket to get into trouble. You also don't need a "legacy" protocol.

Re: Cyberscript

#60

Post by darek »

yomismoaqui wrote: post #17

2022-2023 on the bottom of the main page, last release from 2023 & most recent commit from 8 months ago... seems almost dead to me

Yes, it was very promising, but unfortunately abandoned. And yeah, the name was bad too. But it doesn't matter. Lua/Luau is still the only serious language in this field, which is a pity.
Post reply on HN