21–30 of 88 posts
That sentence is in every act of creation - something new just spawns something else that was not possible before the original act.
It's marvellous to see and indicates he is on the trail of something good - all the best.
If you’re thinking of writing a language in earnest, you will create something much more valuable if you start from a novel semantics, and only then come up with a syntax to express those semantics, than if you were to start from syntax. The world does not need yet another reskin of Java, but it could use new programming paradigms and new ways of solving problems. As a learning exercise, implementing a language is wo…
There's a rule of thumb among language designers that your language should either focus on proving out one big language feature, or it should introduce zero new language features but combine new language features from a number of other languages. So for example:
Erlang introduced lightweight CSP-based concurrency. Go popularized it.
Haskell introduced typeclasses. Go and Rust popularize them (as interfaces and traits, respectively, the latter also influenced by C++ STL's concepts).
Cyclone introduced linear types. Rust popularizes them.
Smalltalk introduced object-orientation. (More precisely, Simula did and Smalltalk took it to its logical conclusion.) Java, C++, and Objective-C popularized it.
Self introduced prototype-based programming. Javascript popularized it.
CLOS (Common Lisp) introduced the meta-object protocol. Python and Ruby popularized it, particularly in their Django and Rails web frameworks respectively.
Usually popularizing a language involves a good deal of work that's not sexy, notably building up a large standard library, developer tools, a package manager, and a whole ecosystem around the language.
If you’re thinking of writing a language in earnest, you will create something much more valuable if you start from a novel semantics, and only then come up with a syntax to express those semantics, than if you were to start from syntax. The world does not need yet another reskin of Java, but it could use new programming paradigms and new ways of solving problems. As a learning exercise, implementing a language is wo…
If you're looking to build something that people will actually use, you're better off not doing anything novel at all, but rather combining novel ideas that have shown promise in research languages into a package that people might actually want to use for everyday programming. There's a rule of thumb among language designers that your language should either focus on proving out one big language feature , or it should…
This rule doesn't exist among language designers, at least the ones I hang out with. You'll find a mix of innovation and invention in most programming languages.
If you’re thinking of writing a language in earnest, you will create something much more valuable if you start from a novel semantics, and only then come up with a syntax to express those semantics, than if you were to start from syntax. The world does not need yet another reskin of Java, but it could use new programming paradigms and new ways of solving problems. As a learning exercise, implementing a language is wo…
If you're looking to build something that people will actually use, you're better off not doing anything novel at all, but rather combining novel ideas that have shown promise in research languages into a package that people might actually want to use for everyday programming. There's a rule of thumb among language designers that your language should either focus on proving out one big language feature , or it should…
If you’re thinking of writing a language in earnest, you will create something much more valuable if you start from a novel semantics, and only then come up with a syntax to express those semantics, than if you were to start from syntax. The world does not need yet another reskin of Java, but it could use new programming paradigms and new ways of solving problems. As a learning exercise, implementing a language is wo…
If you're looking to build something that people will actually use, you're better off not doing anything novel at all, but rather combining novel ideas that have shown promise in research languages into a package that people might actually want to use for everyday programming. There's a rule of thumb among language designers that your language should either focus on proving out one big language feature , or it should…
This is a really ironic thing to say considering Go doesn't have generics, rust doesn't have higher kinds, they don't support any sort of implicit (or global) way of using them as constraints.... are you sure you know what type classes are?
The author says he turned to Coursera, but doesn't mention the course(s) he took, but I'm going to guess it's the the 'Compilers' class from Stanford[0]. I've heard good things about the course and the lecturer (Alex Aiken) so I really wanted to take the course while it was being offered but was too busy last year. I hope they offer it again this year. https://www.coursera.org/course/compilers
I found SPIM super-annoying, but managed to resist the temptation to build a better MIPS emulator. :-)
Highly recommend: writing a (very simple) compiler is no longer a black-art-seeming thing to me.
The author says he turned to Coursera, but doesn't mention the course(s) he took, but I'm going to guess it's the the 'Compilers' class from Stanford[0]. I've heard good things about the course and the lecturer (Alex Aiken) so I really wanted to take the course while it was being offered but was too busy last year. I hope they offer it again this year. https://www.coursera.org/course/compilers
This is excellent: I recently worked through this class (at my own pace: you can register for past offerings). I made things a little harder than necessary by eschewing the provided framework code and writing everything myself, in go. I found SPIM super-annoying, but managed to resist the temptation to build a better MIPS emulator. :-) Highly recommend: writing a (very simple) compiler is no longer a black-art-seemin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're looking to build something that people will actually use, you're better off not doing anything novel at all, but rather combining novel ideas that have shown promise in research languages into a package that people might actually want to use for everyday programming. There's a rule of thumb among language designers that your language should either focus on proving out one big language feature , or it should…
erlang's concurrency is actors, which is different from go's CSP. And I nearly spat out my tea when you said that Go popularized something Haskell did; and I haven't even had any tea today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
erlang's concurrency is actors, which is different from go's CSP. And I nearly spat out my tea when you said that Go popularized something Haskell did; and I haven't even had any tea today.
But didn't Go effectively popularize typeclasses through interfaces?