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

The Flix Programming Language

flix.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–126 of 126 posts

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#121

Post by jcparkyn »

qsort wrote: post #7
ashton314 wrote: post #2

Woah, the effect system looks really neat at first glance. Also, “region-based local mutation” so your pure functions can use mutation under the hood for performance? Sweet!

I'd like to see an experimental language that leans hard into the concept of controlled mutation. I always say that purely in terms of design my ideal language is high-level Haskell, low-level C. Conceptually, purely functional design is how programming "should" (note the quotes) be, but doing so down to the level of functions is both not very practical (some algorithms are just easier to express in terms pointers mo…

Another alternative to this that seems quite promising is mutable value semantics (e.g. https://research.google/pubs/pub51426/).

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#122

Post by thefourthchime »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #28
thefourthchime wrote: post #24

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.

This reads like a take from a mid-level manager rationalizing that they never learned to code, and convincing themselves that they'll never need to.

I've been a dev for 25 years. I write code every day.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#123

Post by Asraelite »

> Unused definitions, type declarations, etc. are compile-time errors.

This is disappointing. One my main grievances with Go is that it's very difficult to prototype code because it won't compile with unused variables. It massively slows down development. It annoyed me so much that I eventually forked the Go compiler and made a version where unused variables are only a warning.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#124

Post by dangerlibrary »

thefourthchime wrote: post #122
dangerlibrary wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like a take from a mid-level manager rationalizing that they never learned to code, and convincing themselves that they'll never need to.

I've been a dev for 25 years. I write code every day.

Neat!

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#125

Post by brabel »

wavemode wrote: post #92
brabel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OOP simply came first Not really. Lisp is a functional programming language and has existed since at least 1960. Some claim there were many other proto-functional languages since the early 60's, and the FP language [1] (a clearly functional programming language and the result of the famous paper "Can Programming Be Liberated From the von Neumann Style?") appeared in 1977 - was inspired by much earlier efforts like…

Lisp is not a functional programming language.

People are now trying to redefine what functional programming means. Lisp is as close to the lambda calculus as you can get, and Functional Programming is based on lambda calculus mode of computation (VS Von Neumann procedural model).

When you write Lisp, you're mostly composing functions. It's truly very functional, just not purely functional which is probably the motivation behind your refusal to include Lisp in the functional programming language family, which would horrify the founders of the field as it's a simple attempt at redefining a widely used, well understood term to become a small subset of it for reasons of gatekeeping what we should, according to you, include under the term without any real technical reason behind it.

Post reply on HN