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

Tulip – An untyped functional language

jneen.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 59 posts

Re: Tulip – An untyped functional language

#4

Post by wyager »

"I’ve renamed the language from Unf to Tulip, because some folks pointed out that the old name created an unnecessarily sexualized environment"

Are fifth graders critiquing programming languages now? Seriously, who makes that association and then feels the need to comment on it?

Re: Tulip – An untyped functional language

#5

Post by evincarofautumn »

wyager wrote: post #4

"I’ve renamed the language from Unf to Tulip, because some folks pointed out that the old name created an unnecessarily sexualized environment" Are fifth graders critiquing programming languages now? Seriously, who makes that association and then feels the need to comment on it?

“Unf” is quite widely used as a spelling of a moan, to express sexual desire or gratification. While it can be used to express non-sexual enjoyment, the sexual connotation it evokes is just unnecessary when it comes to a programming language, regardless of the original intent.

Re: Tulip – An untyped functional language

#6

Post by lectrick »

> I strongly dislike macros that can hide in code. I get really frustrated when I open a source file and see (foo ...) and can’t tell whether it’s a function or a macro until I read documentation.

Well... that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Seriously though. In Elixir, for example, much of the language itself is implemented via its own macros, which demonstrates a certain nice extensibility. If Elixir followed this same pattern, it would get really annoying really quickly, as even simple if statements would require a leading slash.

Also, I preferred "unf" ;)

Re: Tulip – An untyped functional language

#7

Post by jneen »

wyager wrote: post #4

"I’ve renamed the language from Unf to Tulip, because some folks pointed out that the old name created an unnecessarily sexualized environment" Are fifth graders critiquing programming languages now? Seriously, who makes that association and then feels the need to comment on it?

It was a decision I made, partly because I realized they were right, and partly because I think tulips are pretty.

     ) (
    (  _)
      |/

Re: Tulip – An untyped functional language

#8

Post by jneen »

duaneb wrote: post #3

Note that it definitely has types, they just aren't required explicitly. It seems to use dynamic type matching.

Yep! It focuses more on dynamic type-checks than on static typing though, so I put it in the category of "untyped functional" - more like clojure and erlang than haskell or ml.

Re: Tulip – An untyped functional language

#9

Post by jneen »

lectrick wrote: post #6

> I strongly dislike macros that can hide in code. I get really frustrated when I open a source file and see (foo ...) and can’t tell whether it’s a function or a macro until I read documentation. Well... that's just, like, your opinion, man. Seriously though. In Elixir, for example, much of the language itself is implemented via its own macros, which demonstrates a certain nice extensibility. If Elixir followed this…

Yep, it's my opinion, and that's why I put it into the design. Lots of language design comes from opinions. I hope it's borne out. FWIW it's the same approach Rust has taken, where macros have to end with a ! to make them visually distinct.
Post reply on HN