The Austral Programming Language
austral-lang.org
The Austral Programming Language
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#2Has Austral been used for any real-world, production projects?
If so, what?
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#3I can understand the intent behind most of the design 'no's - except for subtyping. why is this a problem? I was just looking at the union/sum distinction and the same thing came up. maybe this is a good learning moment.
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#4Has Austral been used for any real-world, production projects? If so, what?
[flagged]
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#5This quite a shallow observation, but I really wish new languages would cut down on verbosity and boilerplate. Making people type out “function” instead of “fn”, “def”, or nothing at all feels like unneeded friction.
I’m not looking for APL levels of terseness, but I also don’t want to have my code mistaken for an essay filled with what amounts to scaffolding.
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#6I can understand the intent behind most of the design 'no's - except for subtyping. why is this a problem? I was just looking at the union/sum distinction and the same thing came up. maybe this is a good learning moment.
Well, the language has no implicit type conversions so there is no much point in having subtyping either.
On the other hand, subtyping interacts very, very badly with both type inference (it almost instantly becomes undecideable, in practice as well as in theory) and with typeclasses (again, decidability issues).
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#7Re: The Austral Programming Language
#8This quite a shallow observation, but I really wish new languages would cut down on verbosity and boilerplate. Making people type out “function” instead of “fn”, “def”, or nothing at all feels like unneeded friction. I’m not looking for APL levels of terseness, but I also don’t want to have my code mistaken for an essay filled with what amounts to scaffolding.
I’d like it to just look exactly like C, but with new ideas in some incompatible syntax showing it is not part of C.
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#9This is cool but everything is too verbose.
`austral compile hello.aum --entrypoint=Hello:main --output=hello`
vs
`go build`
Etc etc.
Re: The Austral Programming Language
#10This quite a shallow observation, but I really wish new languages would cut down on verbosity and boilerplate. Making people type out “function” instead of “fn”, “def”, or nothing at all feels like unneeded friction. I’m not looking for APL levels of terseness, but I also don’t want to have my code mistaken for an essay filled with what amounts to scaffolding.
I’d like it to just look exactly like C, but with new ideas in some incompatible syntax showing it is not part of C.
Zig? Or Nim? Both of those are Algol-ish.
Ooh! What about [0]? Gambit Scheme has what they call `six-script` which is essentially a refactoring of Scheme grammar to fit into an Algol-esque syntax.
[0] http://gambitscheme.org/latest/manual/#GSI, see section 2.6.1