151–160 of 284 posts
I wish these language websites would put an example of some code right there on the homepage so I can see what the language "feels" like. I finally found some code in the tutorials https://tutorial.ponylang.io/getting-started/hello-world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea but the syntax looks like a mix of Python and JavaScript. By just seeing that I know I don’t want to use it, by seeing the code up front I know that I don’t want to keep reading what ever rationalizations they have to justify the existence of this language. So by seeing the syntax up front I can save a lot of time because in a world where there are many languages that do the same thing it really boils down to usi…
> in a world where there are many languages that do the same thing it really boils down to using the one with the syntax that you like the most Wat? If all languages were just syntax re-skinning, we really wouldn't need more than one compiler backend... Generally the semantic differences are much more important. Rust isn't interesting for its syntax, it's interesting for its ownership rules and borrow checker. Erlang…
But just because syntax is superficial doesn't mean that it isn't important. If a language has such poor syntax that I feel the need to write my own compiler to work around its syntax, I have to seriously question the skills and/or motivations of the author. If I am capable of writing a compiler at the syntactic level, why not just go all in and write my own compiler that implements _my_ desired semantics? A language that I find subjectively distasteful at the syntactic level is nearly guaranteed to be filled with semantic and architectural decisions that I also dislike. Consider Rust, I do not think that its syntax and abysmal compilation times can be decoupled. I would rather write my own borrow checker than subject myself to writing rust. And the reason is not the syntax, which I do strongly dislike, but the semantic properties of the language, such as horrible compilation times and compiler bugs (if a language has more than 100 open issues on github, I consider it broken beyond repair).
Compared to e.g. Rust (one of the better modern examples of easy rigorous math) I really like how concise they are. What I'm missing are saturating operations. I know some people find them useless, and through a "perfect results" lens they are, but they still give you the closest representable number. And they are often intuitive for humans since that's how most analog instruments work
I wish these language websites would put an example of some code right there on the homepage so I can see what the language "feels" like. I finally found some code in the tutorials https://tutorial.ponylang.io/getting-started/hello-world
Why another object language?
I love the syntax for checked math. a + b for wrap around, a +? b to raise an exception on under/overflow, and a +~ b for maximum performance, leaving behavior on under/overflow undefined (including floats having undefined behavior on +-Inf and NaN). Compared to e.g. Rust (one of the better modern examples of easy rigorous math) I really like how concise they are. What I'm missing are saturating operations. I know so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See: https://www.ponylang.io/discover/why-pony/ I don't think that Pony is claiming to be novel in the area of syntax?
If “reference capabilities” are the important thing about Pony, they should have a max 100-200 LoC example on the front page that uses them. As far as I can tell reading here, “reference capabilities” don’t do anything that properly-used C semaphores haven’t done for near half a century. Or that their abstraction of that isn’t nicer to use than, say, Elixir’s, or better than Rust’s borrow checker for managing mutabil…
Also the syntax is great, probably my favourite language ever syntactically. Dunno why there's a pointless argument about it in these comments...
The reference capabilities are fairly novel as well. Apart from the lack of tooling, writing in Pony is great.
This is probably my favorite programming language I would like to use if it had more backing. Their reference capabilities in particular seem like a very good match for the actor model. Alas, it does not appear to have a large corporation behind it pushing it forward, nor a compelling niche use case (e.g. it is still GC'd).
I loved playing with this a few years ago, but have lost track of it for a while. The causality model was great, but is there a way to handle backpressure now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The D language home page has something similar with a drop down with code examples https://dlang.org/
I was about to mention Dlangs website aswell, very well designed and clearly presents the language
That was years ago. After reading your comment, I decided to check again. The same “AAA game” link is still first, and it’s still broken.
You can’t really call that “a good presentation of a language” when the very first real-world example links to nowhere—and nobody’s bothered to fix it for years.
I wish these language websites would put an example of some code right there on the homepage so I can see what the language "feels" like. I finally found some code in the tutorials https://tutorial.ponylang.io/getting-started/hello-world