The Lobster Programming Language • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#131

Post by Aardappel » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

brianpgordon wrote: post #117

Aardappel wrote: post #14

Hi, author of the language here. Not a great time for HN exposure, as I just added a lot of new functionality, but none of that is documented yet :) But hey, all publicity is good publicity? For those interested, some recent things that have been happening: - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump t…

There's a lot of great technical info on the homepage, but it's tough for me to see the forest for the trees here. Could you make a short (probably oversimplified; that's ok) case for what Lobster is especially good at and why it's worth using rather than other programming languages? Or direct me to where one is already written?

I was hoping the current homepage had that function, with a list of special features followed by some examples.

You want it shorter? Something like "Get Python-like ease of use together with static typing and speed and built-in game programming functionality" ? That really doesn't do it justice. In the end, like most languages, it is a particular cocktail of trade-offs, and to see whether this suits you, you need see the full list of features.

Maybe you want a list of features with an example for each? It's hard to make it short though, especially the type system.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#132

Post by Aardappel » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

grok2 wrote: post #88

Aardappel wrote: post #14

Hi, author of the language here. Not a great time for HN exposure, as I just added a lot of new functionality, but none of that is documented yet :) But hey, all publicity is good publicity? For those interested, some recent things that have been happening: - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump t…

Weird, just yesterday, there was a link from a different language that seemed very similar to yours or at least has similar goals: http://cone.jondgoodwin.com/

Not sure if I'd call these similar, Cone looks more low level, with more explicit typing etc. Looks cool though.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#133

Post by kragen » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

repsilat wrote: post #64

Aardappel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the one and only :) Do I know you as well?

Nah, just a forum lurker who had a folder full of mods and maps and engine binaries much too large much too late. Didn't know how to code back then, and probably can't rocket jump anymore now. Mostly just surprised at having that old memory surface out of nowhere. Thanks for making that scene cooler way back when.

You should check out Sauerbraten.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#134

Post by bluetwo » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

Aardappel wrote: post #131

brianpgordon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of great technical info on the homepage, but it's tough for me to see the forest for the trees here. Could you make a short (probably oversimplified; that's ok) case for what Lobster is especially good at and why it's worth using rather than other programming languages? Or direct me to where one is already written?

I was hoping the current homepage had that function, with a list of special features followed by some examples. You want it shorter? Something like "Get Python-like ease of use together with static typing and speed and built-in game programming functionality" ? That really doesn't do it justice. In the end, like most languages, it is a particular cocktail of trade-offs, and to see whether this suits you, you need see…

Not features. Benefits.

Benefits show an increase in something good or a decrease in something bad.

Better speed. Less code. Easier distribution. Lower cost.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#135

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

Aardappel wrote: post #14

Hi, author of the language here. Not a great time for HN exposure, as I just added a lot of new functionality, but none of that is documented yet :) But hey, all publicity is good publicity? For those interested, some recent things that have been happening: - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump t…

  - Multi-threading that uses separate memory spaces, meaning individual threads can run at max speed with no GIL overhead etc.

Hmm? Does that mean that they are actual processes sharing no memory? EDIT: If so then that's a big downside. In Rust you get thread-safety for traditional, shared-memory threading/concurrency. Ideally you should be able to get as good as Rust for threading. Ultimately, I think it all depends on this:

  - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump through hoops.

I mean, that would be a huge win, but there must be a trade-off. Can you elaborate?

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#136

Post by brianpgordon » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #135

Aardappel wrote: post #14

Hi, author of the language here. Not a great time for HN exposure, as I just added a lot of new functionality, but none of that is documented yet :) But hey, all publicity is good publicity? For those interested, some recent things that have been happening: - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump t…

- Multi-threading that uses separate memory spaces, meaning individual threads can run at max speed with no GIL overhead etc. Hmm? Does that mean that they are actual processes sharing no memory? EDIT: If so then that's a big downside. In Rust you get thread-safety for traditional, shared-memory threading/concurrency. Ideally you should be able to get as good as Rust for threading. Ultimately, I think it all depends…

Even if it does mean separate OS processes (which I doubt), keep in mind that on Linux basic POSIX threads are basically just processes with some shared memory mapped in. There's no real performance difference.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#137

Post by brianpgordon » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

sytelus wrote: post #86

Aardappel wrote: post #14

Hi, author of the language here. Not a great time for HN exposure, as I just added a lot of new functionality, but none of that is documented yet :) But hey, all publicity is good publicity? For those interested, some recent things that have been happening: - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump t…

I have never understood why people create entire programming language when just creating a nice C++ library would been more than sufficient, desirable, integratable and adaptable. You can always export bindings for any target language and users would be saved from learning yet another beast that would be unmaintained in few years. I'm not saying never developing new language... If you have radically new thought, go a…

C++ is a deeply, deeply flawed programming language carrying decades of baggage to stay backwards compatible. Let's not pretend that mere inertia is enough reason to keep using the same tools forever.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#138

Post by brianpgordon » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #108

aitchnyu wrote: post #93

Did you create a VM that is several times faster than Python's, for a static typed language thats as productive as a dynamic language, with true multithreading? How did you outdo entire language communities?

I'm a huge proponent of typed languages, but there's no way that a statically typed language could be as productive as Python (with current type systems technology). For example, just the Pandas library offers incredible flexibility (often dynamically based on the arguments that different functions get) that I've yet to see replicated in a static language.

My experience is that you start out very productive not being weighed down by having to satisfy the type checker... but programs tend to grow over time and you end up regretting it. When you have a medium to large codebase in a dynamically typed language it gets to be more of a hindrance than a help.

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#139

Post by Aardappel » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #135

Aardappel wrote: post #14

Hi, author of the language here. Not a great time for HN exposure, as I just added a lot of new functionality, but none of that is documented yet :) But hey, all publicity is good publicity? For those interested, some recent things that have been happening: - Compile time reference counting. This does an analysis similar to the Rust borrow checker to infer lifetimes, but unlike Rust doesn't make the programmer jump t…

- Multi-threading that uses separate memory spaces, meaning individual threads can run at max speed with no GIL overhead etc. Hmm? Does that mean that they are actual processes sharing no memory? EDIT: If so then that's a big downside. In Rust you get thread-safety for traditional, shared-memory threading/concurrency. Ideally you should be able to get as good as Rust for threading. Ultimately, I think it all depends…

This does not mean separate processes, it simply spawns one "VM" per thread. Lobster VMs are pretty light weight (just a self contained object that has everything for a program to run). The advantage is that everything inside one VM can be single threaded, down to memory allocator. The threads then communicate by sending each other lobster values, similar to a "tuple space". I personally think this explicit communication style of concurrency is safer and easier to use than shared memory concurrency.

As for the lifetime analysis, see some sibling comments: I need to do a good write-up of the algorithm. I wasn't anticipating this HN post :)

Re: The Lobster Programming Language

#140

Post by Aardappel » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

bluetwo wrote: post #134

Aardappel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping the current homepage had that function, with a list of special features followed by some examples. You want it shorter? Something like "Get Python-like ease of use together with static typing and speed and built-in game programming functionality" ? That really doesn't do it justice. In the end, like most languages, it is a particular cocktail of trade-offs, and to see whether this suits you, you need see…

Not features. Benefits. Benefits show an increase in something good or a decrease in something bad. Better speed. Less code. Easier distribution. Lower cost.

A lot of the benefits are hard to express in numbers, and I am not a marketing person.

Does this particular kind of type system help you in your software engineering? Very hard to quantify, and depends on circumstances and even personal preference.

I don't think I have any hard-number benefits that are meaningful.