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

The Borgo Programming Language

borgo-lang.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 204 posts

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#21

Post by captaincrowbar »

diggan wrote: post #17
graemep wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse than that, it has no license at all. It cannot legally be used.

> It cannot legally be used. Not true at all. If you create and/or upload a repository to GitHub, you're giving others the permission to see and fork it. From the "Licensing a repository": > If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the [Terms of Service]( https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... ), other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork y…

That doesn't make it open source, just "source available".

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#24

Post by bmacho »

Looks similar to Haxe (and to the language that C++/Java/Python/TypeScript/etc are converging).

Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#25

Post by alexvitkov »

kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

> Because the harsh truth is that none of those things are actually big issues that would justify learning slightly different syntax.

The syntax has nothing to do with it, you already know the syntax. I'm fairly confident most people reading this comment can program in this language right now, without opening the docs.

The reasons I won't be using it are:

1. It's a source to source transpiler - even when done nearly perfectly, these always introduce problems. Debugging TS is never 100% seamless. Debugging minified JS is annoying, even with a sourcemap.

2. Go code tends to be very simple and "un-abstract", so the problems with the language's syntax and typesystem aren't bad enough to justify a wrapper.

3. I don't want to be an early adopter of programming languages. This may be harsh, but I won't consider a language until it reaches at least #50 in popularity someone is paid to work on the tooling full time. Hobbyists enjoy solving interesting problems like language design, but don't particularly enjoy the "gruntwork" some of which is critical - a comprehensive test suite, a fuzzer for the compiler, an LSP/IDE/editor plugins, a good standard library...

There have been a lot of promising one-man projects such as this one, that get abandoned when the lead developer moves on. You don't want to be stuck holding the bag with a large codebase in a zero user language.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#26

Post by graemep »

kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

> This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library).

Note the thread here about the lack of a license. You cannot legally use it.

Even if you risk using it, people are also wary of using a language that has a single developer behind it, and would be even if it were open source.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#27

Post by diggan »

Someone wrote: post #19
diggan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It cannot legally be used. Not true at all. If you create and/or upload a repository to GitHub, you're giving others the permission to see and fork it. From the "Licensing a repository": > If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the [Terms of Service]( https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... ), other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork y…

Corrections welcome, but I don’t think the right to view and fork code gives you the right to run it. Also, GitHub’s terms say: “If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for…

Yeah, true, thanks for expanding the context.

Would also depend on how exactly GitHub (or a court) would interpret "forking", as an argument could be made that a GitHub fork is just a "GitHub Create" + "Git Clone" operation, and having permission to do a "GitHub Fork" means you're also allowed to do a "Git Clone".

I guess we'll never know, as a case like this would never reach court so it's guesses all around.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#28

Post by diggan »

bmacho wrote: post #24

Looks similar to Haxe (and to the language that C++/Java/Python/TypeScript/etc are converging). Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase.

> Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase.

Has Google ever "taken" an already created project under their wing and ran with it? AFAIK, Google only does the opposite and releases projects from their grips, but never the opposite. "Everything Google does, Google must invent" is how it looks like from the outside at least.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#30

Post by weinzierl »

kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

"It literally addresses every major complaint people have with Go."

It addresses complaints 1 to n but does nothing about complaint 0: Having a garbage collector with all its associated downsides.

Post reply on HN