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

Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

roc-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 180 posts

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#101

Post by azangru »

johnfn wrote: post #98
davidatbu wrote: post #80

I'm super keen to see how Roc pans out, because it sits at an (IMO) riveting spot in the space of PL design tradeoffs: 1. The typesystem will be sound, ML-like, and so simple that any code that doesn't interact with external data will not need _any_ type annotations. 2. An aim to make it the fastest managed compiled lang around (faster than golang). 3. Functional. 4. A focus on fast compile times from the beginning (…

> 1. The typesystem will be sound, ML-like, and so simple that any code that doesn't interact with external data will not need _any_ type annotations. I've tried using languages with this promise, such as Haskell, and also spent a lot of time with TypeScript, which makes a different set of tradeoffs, and I feel like I've spent enough time on both to know this is the wrong tradeoff to make. It sounds flashy to be able…

> The TS approach of "please at least annotate all your function signatures"

The whole signature or just the parameters? I thought typescript is pretty chill about inferring the return type on its own.

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#102

Post by exxos »

davidatbu wrote: post #80

I'm super keen to see how Roc pans out, because it sits at an (IMO) riveting spot in the space of PL design tradeoffs: 1. The typesystem will be sound, ML-like, and so simple that any code that doesn't interact with external data will not need _any_ type annotations. 2. An aim to make it the fastest managed compiled lang around (faster than golang). 3. Functional. 4. A focus on fast compile times from the beginning (…

[flagged]

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#103

Post by christophilus »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #44

Has anyone else noticed that functional languages go heavy on the special keywords and operators? It feels like theres a larger cognitive load (more specific keywords to memorize) when learning languages like F# or OCaml compared to C or Python or Java

Clojure doesn't. I'd really, really love to see a fast, statically-typed, functional lisp.

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#104

Post by ReleaseCandidat »

johnfn wrote: post #98
davidatbu wrote: post #80

I'm super keen to see how Roc pans out, because it sits at an (IMO) riveting spot in the space of PL design tradeoffs: 1. The typesystem will be sound, ML-like, and so simple that any code that doesn't interact with external data will not need _any_ type annotations. 2. An aim to make it the fastest managed compiled lang around (faster than golang). 3. Functional. 4. A focus on fast compile times from the beginning (…

> 1. The typesystem will be sound, ML-like, and so simple that any code that doesn't interact with external data will not need _any_ type annotations. I've tried using languages with this promise, such as Haskell, and also spent a lot of time with TypeScript, which makes a different set of tradeoffs, and I feel like I've spent enough time on both to know this is the wrong tradeoff to make. It sounds flashy to be able…

The Haskell approach is "annotate all top level declarations" (even if not exported) and OCaml has module signatures. But both (and Roc) don't make up new "types" like Typescript does.

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#106

Post by 1letterunixname »

yashrk wrote: post #9

If you are interested, «why yet another programming language?». The unique selling point of Roc is clever optimization to convert purely functional source code to deep-imperative fast machine code, while keeping all the correctness of functional algorithms. See this video of Richard Feldman for details — «Outperforming Imperative with Pure Functional Languages»: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzfy4EKwG_Y Among those…

> convert purely functional source code to deep-imperative fast machine code, while keeping all the correctness of functional algorithms.

All functional language compilers, interpreters, and/or runtimes ultimately have to do this by definition. The efficiency of transpilation varies widely.

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#108

Post by zem »

Eji1700 wrote: post #84
whalesalad wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been on the F# website for 5 minutes now looking through damn near every page and I cannot find a single page that shows me a simple example program or the syntax at all. Everything is hidden behind some kind of "let's get started!" wizard. https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/languages/fsharp-he...

Oh yeah. A key hindrance of F# is that MS treats it like a side project even though it's probably their secret weapon, and a lot of the adopters are dotnet coders who already know the basics so the on-boarding is less than ideal. https://fsharp.org/ is the best place to actually start, although i'm guessing you did and went to the hello world which leads back to ms's nightmares. https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ is…

agreed, a "learn dotnet via f#" approach for people with experience in other ML languages would be excellent.

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#109

Post by ReleaseCandidat »

elbear wrote: post #99
ReleaseCandidat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, there actually are more. Interesting, I "feel" the opposite. Haskell (55 + some more, because of the grouping): https://wiki.haskell.org/Keywords F# https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref... OCaml: https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/lex.html#sss:keywords Python: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3.12/Lib/keyword.py Java (I think these are the current ones): https://docs.oracle.com/ja…

A few of the Haskell ones are introduced by extensions, so they're not part of the language proper.

Yes, I know. Same for OCaml with PPXs. That was just to show that even Haskell has many, even though most operators aren't keywords but "normal" infix functions (of type classes).

Re: Roc – A fast, friendly, functional language

#110

Post by fouronnes3 »

surprisetalk wrote: post #2

For those out of the loop, Roc was spearheaded by Richard Feldman, who made major contributions to Elm. Feldman is such a charming guy! I highly recommend checking out his podcast Software Unscripted and watching his many talks on YouTube. The recent SU episode with Brian Carroll talking about WASM in Roc was a great listen. Roc also has an active community on zulip, so consider stopping by :) [1] https://twitter.com…

What happened to Elm by the way?
Post reply on HN