Live data from Hacker News

The Flix Programming Language

flix.dev

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#101
It boggles my mind that any developer of a new language wouldn’t use Python’s significant use of white space.

You’re able to fit more code on a screen, and it’s less visual noise. It’s like Pareto better. I really don’t get why others don’t copy it.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#102
post #100
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now you just silenced a warning and transformed it into a semantically correct form you have no way of recognizing from afar, making the original problem 10-fold worse. It is a brain-dead feature, verbatim if you prefer that word.

You know, I used to think that design was a nuanced grappling of complex tradeoffs, but you convinced me: those you disagree with are just "brain-dead" "idiots". I think there is a relevant quote by Charles Bukowski about confidence, but it escapes me...

There often is nuance. I haven’t seen any positive for this feature, nor here, nor in the relevant github issues for the languages in question, which were quite argumentative.

But feel free to give me the nuance to this design issue that you so miss.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#103

> The following design choices may be considered controversial by some: > Dividing by zero yields zero. https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/divide-by-zero/ That's one interesting point I would love to read any opinions on. Edit: Here's a HN discussion about the `divide by zero` article - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17736046

This is notable too:

In the year since I wrote this post, Pony added partial division. I still don’t know anything about the language but they’ve been getting grief over this post so I wanted to clear that up.

https://tutorial.ponylang.io/expressions/arithmetic.html#par...

I think Hillel's post was just saying that 1/0 == 0 doesn't lead to any mathematical contradictions.

Another way to think about it is that I believe 1/0 == 42 and 1/0 == 43 are just as valid. They don't lead to contradictions.

[In ZF set theory] Since 0 is not in the domain of recip, we know nothing about the value of 1 / 0; it might equal √2, it might equal R, or it might equal anything else.

But I don't think you want to use a language where 1/0 == 42, and likewise for 0.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't like "Unused definitions, type declarations, etc. are compile-time errors" as I often want to test the validity of a statement, like a type declaration, by compiling before using it. Much prefer warnings. I don't mind the disallowing name shadowing, but I really, really hate (I mean that) websites that are just good ol' text and the odd picture that require Javascript. The excuse of "we used React, it's…

The situation here is not unlike the problem with null: If you allow null in your language, you will have NullPointerExceptions at runtime. Unused local variables (and other unused constructs) are known to be correlated with bugs (see e.g., Xie and Engler, 2002), so if you allow them, you will allow these bugs. So, by enforcing the absence of unused constructs, a large class of bugs is eliminated. But I agree, this c…

I still think it is a bad decision, you still have to recursively go back a random depth and a random number of modifications on each level for no benefit (it could be an error in release version, but it is just annoying for development).

What benefit does it have in development-mode?

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#105
post #102
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I used to think that design was a nuanced grappling of complex tradeoffs, but you convinced me: those you disagree with are just "brain-dead" "idiots". I think there is a relevant quote by Charles Bukowski about confidence, but it escapes me...

There often is nuance. I haven’t seen any positive for this feature, nor here, nor in the relevant github issues for the languages in question, which were quite argumentative. But feel free to give me the nuance to this design issue that you so miss.

I can't imagine why they would be argumentative with a gentle diplomat like yourself.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#106

In today's world, i think that English is the only programming language that people should focus on. With the rapid rise of AI, most tasks will soon involve the management of AI models rather than writing code. However, it is still important to have a basic understanding of coding. Introducing a new programming language at this point seems silly to me.

People had tales about malevolent genies for eternity. Being able to program “in English” doesn’t considerably make the task easier. The actual hard part is dealing with all the edge cases.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#107
post #105
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There often is nuance. I haven’t seen any positive for this feature, nor here, nor in the relevant github issues for the languages in question, which were quite argumentative. But feel free to give me the nuance to this design issue that you so miss.

I can't imagine why they would be argumentative with a gentle diplomat like yourself.

I was only a spectator.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#108
I absolutely love the idea of embedding Prolog-esque rules inside a full traditional programming language for solving specific problems. The region-based local mutation is also an incredible idea that would really solve one of my core pain points with immutable languages like Haskell and Elixir.

Also this part made me let out an audible "wow":

> We can exploit purity reflection to selectively use lazy or parallel evaluation inside a library without changing the semantics from the point-of-view of the clients.

Will definitely keep an eye on this language! The syntax seems a little odd (inferring type parameters for functions?) but I'm sure I could get used to it.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#109

The website is infrequently updated, so let me provide some information about what we are currently working on: - We are trying to make the entire compiler resilient (error-tolerant), incremental, and parallel. We have managed to make every single compiler phase (of which there are 28) parallel. This has already led to significant speed-ups. We are now trying to increase the degree of parallelism within each phase. W…

> recently added support for package management

Are there any [plans for] supply chain attack mitigations?

Naively searching, I find https://github.com/flix/flix/issues/4380#issuecomment-123641... (Proposed Principle: A package can be declared as "safe") and https://github.com/flix/flix/issues/2837 (Add capability-safety to polymorphic effects?) the latter closed with working on something related to this https://github.com/flix/flix/issues/3000 (The Road to Algebraic Effects).

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#110

The website is infrequently updated, so let me provide some information about what we are currently working on: - We are trying to make the entire compiler resilient (error-tolerant), incremental, and parallel. We have managed to make every single compiler phase (of which there are 28) parallel. This has already led to significant speed-ups. We are now trying to increase the degree of parallelism within each phase. W…

> recently added support for package management Are there any [plans for] supply chain attack mitigations? Naively searching, I find https://github.com/flix/flix/issues/4380#issuecomment-123641... (Proposed Principle: A package can be declared as "safe") and https://github.com/flix/flix/issues/2837 (Add capability-safety to polymorphic effects?) the latter closed with working on something related to this https://gith…

In short yes. We plan to leverage the effect system for this. Stay tuned.
Post reply on HN