Orange: A simple systems programming language
orange-lang.org
Orange: A simple systems programming language
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#2That looks interesting. However, i'm not really into language-design and compilers and the first commit is from April while the project has only two contributors. Apart from the absence of a standard-library, I couldn't find anything like "attention, this is in beta". Don't get me wrong, I just would be surprised if this really was a stable language developed in under three months.
(Something I was wondering about is that it says "Contains orange standard library stuff" in https://github.com/orange-lang/orange/blob/master/lib/libor/... and "At the moment, Orange has no standard library" in https://github.com/orange-lang/orange/blob/master/README.md at the same time.)
Edit: I definitely was too fast. https://github.com/orange-lang/orange/tree/master/lib/libor doesn't contain any code.
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#3That looks interesting. However, i'm not really into language-design and compilers and the first commit is from April while the project has only two contributors. Apart from the absence of a standard-library, I couldn't find anything like "attention, this is in beta". Don't get me wrong, I just would be surprised if this really was a stable language developed in under three months. (Something I was wondering about is…
That's a good point; I updated the README to note that the language is still under development.
And yeah, as for https://github.com/orange-lang/orange/tree/master/lib/libor, it only contains bootstrap code for the linker at the moment.
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#4It'd be nice to update "Why" with reasons why other recent developments in systems programming languages fail to address what you think Orange is addressing.
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#5Is the syntax python-inspired?
It looks a lot more clean to read than Nim, so this will be interesting.
I couldn't find any more examples besides the simple "hello world", so it would be nice to see a few more in-depth examples.
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#6Is the syntax python-inspired? It looks a lot more clean to read than Nim, so this will be interesting. I couldn't find any more examples besides the simple "hello world", so it would be nice to see a few more in-depth examples.
I was more inspired by Ruby's syntax, which I always thought was very clean to read.
I struggled coming up with a lot of examples since I don't have a standard library to work with (yet), but the most diverse group of existing programs would probably be at https://github.com/orange-lang/orange/tree/master/test.
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#7> variables can be defined implicitly
Oops! :-)
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#8Is the simple--easy-to-learn--without-the-mistakes-of-C systems language becoming a hype now?
Not to be a downer, but that's what it seems like since Rust 1.0.
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#9What are the pros of leaving out the type identifier when declaring a generic type? I understand that it's viable to not provide some "Type" identifier to denote a generic type, but I feel like it's better to have it for clarity. What happens when you have a function that accepts two kinds of generic types? This inconsistency doesn't seem worth it to me
Re: Orange: A simple systems programming language
#10What are the pros of leaving out the type identifier when declaring a generic type? I understand that it's viable to not provide some "Type" identifier to denote a generic type, but I feel like it's better to have it for clarity. What happens when you have a function that accepts two kinds of generic types? This inconsistency doesn't seem worth it to me
Each parameter in a function without a type identifier is a unique generic type. This means any function with two typeless parameters already accepts two different kinds of generic types.