Is this like Haxe?
Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#32Is this a research language? I don't understand how this offers anything beyond what already exists. I'm also suspicious of the fact that it's implemented in Go. I would think that someone who knew functional programming well enough to create a new language would implement the language in Haskell or OCaml or even Standard ML. Also the type system looks pretty bad. No algebraic data types.
What a bizarre criticism. Most of the newer popular functional languages aren't implemented in those, but rather Java, and for the same reason given in the readme for Go.
> Most of the newer popular functional languages aren't implemented in those, but rather Java,
I don't think this is true. Java is not a good language for compilers in any case, and it would cause me to trust the language less, especially if they were claiming it was a "functional programming language"
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#33Is this a research language? I don't understand how this offers anything beyond what already exists. I'm also suspicious of the fact that it's implemented in Go. I would think that someone who knew functional programming well enough to create a new language would implement the language in Haskell or OCaml or even Standard ML. Also the type system looks pretty bad. No algebraic data types.
> would implement the language in {foo} If that choice becomes perceivable to anyone but the authors and maintainers of the language itself, I'd say that's a first class failing, isn't it? The quality of a language should be a pure function of the language itself; the interpreter doesn't (or rather, shouldn't ) enter into it.
I'm mostly just saying "if the authors were experts on functional programming, surely they would use Haskell or OCaml?" My problem is not with the compiler/implementation but rather the fact that they are trying to sell a new functional language without having taken stock of the existing offerings.
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the GP has the following causal diagram in mind: +---------------------+ | Author's competence | +-------+-----+-------+ | | | | +--------------+ | | +---------+ |Implementation| |Product | | language | |language | +--------------+ +----+----+ | +----v----+ |Language | |quality | +---------+ So you are both right; language quality is a function of the language itself, but if we don't yet know much about the l…
Except that Haskell and OCaml as implementation languages would signal huge academic bias and therefore likely inability to come up with a usable language or at least there exists a negative correlation with those languages.
> Haskell and OCaml as implementation languages would signal huge academic bias
Apparently reading papers from the past 30 years is a "huge academic bias."
I'd honestly be fine if it was implemented in Racket too.
> inability to come up with a usable language or at least there exists a negative correlation with those languages.
No one has ever actually offered me a substantive argument that Haskell is unusable. It always seems to be "well, I don't personally understand it, and that means it's unusable" Uhh okay.
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the GP has the following causal diagram in mind: +---------------------+ | Author's competence | +-------+-----+-------+ | | | | +--------------+ | | +---------+ |Implementation| |Product | | language | |language | +--------------+ +----+----+ | +----v----+ |Language | |quality | +---------+ So you are both right; language quality is a function of the language itself, but if we don't yet know much about the l…
Except that Haskell and OCaml as implementation languages would signal huge academic bias and therefore likely inability to come up with a usable language or at least there exists a negative correlation with those languages.
Just as a sidenote, Rust's compiler was first implemented in OCaml after all, is Rust "academic and unusable"? ;)
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#36There is not a single example in the README. I checked the step-by-step guide, but it starts with installation and documentation instructions, then imports, and I don't know yet how the language feels like. Ok, let's check that handbook then. Computation model, type system, ... Please, I just want to see a program with a dozen lines of code to see what it looks like. Of course, more extended examples with the intende…
Can't agree more. The readme/lessons looks very "academic" but I just want an overview.
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that Haskell and OCaml as implementation languages would signal huge academic bias and therefore likely inability to come up with a usable language or at least there exists a negative correlation with those languages.
Just as a sidenote, Rust's compiler was first implemented in OCaml after all, is Rust "academic and unusable"? ;)
More than more languages, yes.
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#38There is not a single example in the README. I checked the step-by-step guide, but it starts with installation and documentation instructions, then imports, and I don't know yet how the language feels like. Ok, let's check that handbook then. Computation model, type system, ... Please, I just want to see a program with a dozen lines of code to see what it looks like. Of course, more extended examples with the intende…
isn't this a little demanding and entitled? for example, the submitter of this post to hacker news may not be the creator of the language and repository. so the creator is off just having some fun creating a language, with more than minimal documentation, and uploads it to github to track changes and generally make it public. then someone thinks it's interesting and posts it here, and the top comment is someone with too aggressive of a tone, in my opinion.
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#39There is not a single example in the README. I checked the step-by-step guide, but it starts with installation and documentation instructions, then imports, and I don't know yet how the language feels like. Ok, let's check that handbook then. Computation model, type system, ... Please, I just want to see a program with a dozen lines of code to see what it looks like. Of course, more extended examples with the intende…
The law for making a new language: always include examples up front.
For anything you want other people to use really
Re: Ko – A concurrent, immutable, functional language
#40[deleted]