Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will the compiler be open sourced?
The source code will be publicly available when we reach beta status(things are moving too fast right now).
Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
131–140 of 162 posts
Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#132Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
It clearly states: it targets web assembly. So, this should answer your question I think
Well, you can do graphics programming in c++ or using a game engine and compile it to Webassembly.. So this language could definitely have a graphics library.
Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#134I’ve been considering trying my hand at a C-like WASM language, with most features mapping directly to WASM instructions. Surprised no one’s done something like that yet. Very cool tech
Also +1 for Assemblyscript which is fairly C-ish. It's based on Javascript / Typescript but really works more like C if you are doing anything low level (also it doesn't support Closures etc).
Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#135Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#136Hi, I am the lead of this project, you can try it now with our online IDE, https://try.moonbitlang.com (F5 to run) The docs are available https://github.com/moonbitlang/moonbit-docs , the compiler would be publicly available when we reach the beta status (expected to be the end of Q2 in 2024). Feel free to ask me any question
let x = 3 func foo(x: Int) { fn inc() { x + 1 } // OK, will return x + 1 fn fail() { y + 1 } // fail: The value identifier y is unbound. }
`foo` also captures the global `x`, but shadows it with the parameter `x`.
Can `Generics` be generic - are there higher kinds? Are they all invariant, or do they have variance and if so what is the notation?
Maybe I missed it - can methods be destructured from structs? Can enums have methods?
Is there partial application for methods and functions?
Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#137Hi, I am the lead of this project, you can try it now with our online IDE, https://try.moonbitlang.com (F5 to run) The docs are available https://github.com/moonbitlang/moonbit-docs , the compiler would be publicly available when we reach the beta status (expected to be the end of Q2 in 2024). Feel free to ask me any question
Do you have any plans for a standard library? Build one specific for the language, or will perhaps try use or create/collaborate on a cross language standard library based on wasm component model? Is this even possible or good idea?
May I ask the toolchain you're using to build Moonbit?
Re: Moonbit: Fast, compact and user friendly language for WebAssembly
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because Moonbit is a modern language, while AssemblyScript is carrying forward the mistakes of the past. No language has "no mistakes". For instance, let's take a language like Scala, which appeared 20 years ago. Has it avoided mistakes of the past? Or lets take Rust, which appeared 8 years ago. Is it "perfect"? Same with Moonbit; it will make tradeoffs and mistakes and whatnot. Mistakes are not always technical in…
Modern doesn't imply perfect — just that it uses recent advancements.
Based on the limited docs that are available[0], Moonbit appears to be using C++-style "generics" that are just simple template substitutions (no constraints), which is far less "modern" than what TypeScript offers.
Honestly, I don't think imprecise words like "modern" are particularly useful, helpful, or good for discussions like this. "Pattern matching" has been a feature of certain programming languages for decades, so is that truly a "modern" feature?