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

The Crystal Programming Language

crystal-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#171

Post by Pharohbot »

Dewie3 wrote: post #149
aikah wrote: post #124

I'm a go user right now, but I really want to ditch it because I'm in total disarray with the way the go language is managed and the deafness of the go team. Been looking at D,Nim and Crystal. - D is neat but I'm not interested at all in unsafe stuffs and don't want to have to debug programs or 3rd party libs that relies on that, I want a safe language. - Nim looks really good, although some features like (foo_bar =…

If you don't like unsafe stuff perhaps you should be a bit wary about Nim as well. The attitude seems to be that unsafe things aren't that big of a deal as long as you decent tools to debug them.

Well if you have decent tools to debug them, why should he be wary?

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#173

Post by aldanor »

aikah wrote: post #124

I'm a go user right now, but I really want to ditch it because I'm in total disarray with the way the go language is managed and the deafness of the go team. Been looking at D,Nim and Crystal. - D is neat but I'm not interested at all in unsafe stuffs and don't want to have to debug programs or 3rd party libs that relies on that, I want a safe language. - Nim looks really good, although some features like (foo_bar =…

What about Rust though?

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#174

Post by aldanor »

zeeone wrote: post #102
CyberDildonics wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely should at least look into Julia. I would say it is more elegant than any other language I've seen while being faster than pretty much anything except for straight C / C++ / D / Rust (native systems languages). It should be easy to beat Go in performance and match or exceed Ruby in elegance and simplicity. It's Achilles heel(s) right now though are multi-threading and JIT compilation times (which should…

Julia's 1-based array indexing is counter-intuitive and a turn off.

But Matlab users love it! oh wait..

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#175

Post by davexunit »

MrBra wrote: post #159
davexunit wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've built many a class in Ruby.

> I've built many a class in Ruby. I see..... Anyway, this is elegant to me: sum ||= (1..100000).to_a.inject(:+) Maybe you have a different aesthetical sense than the rest of us. That's perfectly fine, we don't have to like the same things. But since you questioned, now I'm curious and I would like to ask you: what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax? Also if you have 2 extra minutes free, would you…

>what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax?

The Lisp family, Scheme in particular.

(define sum (reduce + 0 (iota 100000 1)))

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#176

Post by eggy »

sandbags wrote: post #167
MrBra wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've built many a class in Ruby. I see..... Anyway, this is elegant to me: sum ||= (1..100000).to_a.inject(:+) Maybe you have a different aesthetical sense than the rest of us. That's perfectly fine, we don't have to like the same things. But since you questioned, now I'm curious and I would like to ask you: what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax? Also if you have 2 extra minutes free, would you…

Having migrated to Clojure I prefer: (reduce + (range 1 100001)) but you can make yours a little nicer by relying on a Range being enumerable, hence: (1..100000).inject(:+)

I prefer J:

  +/>:i.100001
You could takeout the >: but then the range is 0 indexed and not 1-based:

  +/i.100001

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#177

Post by kibwen »

steveklabnik wrote: post #156
kibwen wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're replying to wasn't even talking about Rust. You'd also be vastly overestimating the amount of Rust libs that need unsafe code. For example, Rust's most mature web framework, the one powering crates.io, doesn't use unsafe code at all: https://github.com/iron/iron

Crates.io uses Conduit, not iron.

Ah, so it does. :) Fortunately Conduit doesn't use any unsafe either.

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#178

Post by sandbags »

eggy wrote: post #176
sandbags wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having migrated to Clojure I prefer: (reduce + (range 1 100001)) but you can make yours a little nicer by relying on a Range being enumerable, hence: (1..100000).inject(:+)

I prefer J: +/>:i.100001 You could takeout the >: but then the range is 0 indexed and not 1-based: +/i.100001

Now that is incredibly terse. "/" is the J reducing function? Or is it not comparable?

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#179

Post by eggy »

sandbags wrote: post #178
eggy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer J: +/>:i.100001 You could takeout the >: but then the range is 0 indexed and not 1-based: +/i.100001

Now that is incredibly terse. "/" is the J reducing function? Or is it not comparable?

It is J's 'insert' function. It inserts the verb on the left between the items on the right. I think I've see it called 'apply' for J too, and I think 'reduce' as defined in other functional languages would be correct; it's just that J calls it 'insert'.

Re: The Crystal Programming Language

#180

Post by Reefersleep »

john2x wrote: post #109
davexunit wrote: post #83

I don't understand why Ruby's syntax is seen as so elegant. It's ambiguous and a nightmare to parse. http://programmingisterrible.com/post/42432568185/how-to-par...

Yeah, the Ruby-like syntax of Elixir made me stop looking into it more. I remember reading an article (or was that a chapter in a book), which basically said something like "ok, these parentheses are optional, but only for this case. For other cases, parentheses are required." Which is a shame, since the tooling built for it is the most amazing I've ever seen. I know syntax shouldn't matter, but personally I think co…

I think syntax matters a lot - if it incurs development costs through inconsistencies, for example.

I'm going to a meetup in a couple of days where Elixir and Phoenix will be presented, I think I'll keep your comment in mind and maybe ask about inconsistencies in the syntax, as I wasn't aware of this. What I know of the syntax relation to Ruby is that it is only superficial - the semantics are very different.

Post reply on HN