Live data from Hacker News

Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

github.com

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

#31
post #2

Why do we need yet another language instead of improving the existing ones?

I think that history has taught us that the best way to get existing languages to improve is to demonstrate the value of a paradigm or feature out-of-band in some other language, possibly a new one.

Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

#33
post #24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What language are you going to try and improve? Add static types to Python? Or make Java purely functional? Often one needs to start again. Mirth looks much better than most.

There exist other languages in the category, e.g. https://kittenlang.org/ , http://www.factorcode.org/ , https://github.com/cdiggins/cat-language , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language) . I assume the parent poster referred to improving those (or at least explaining which deficiencies of those myrth is addressing). (In case you didn't already, you can read about this family of languages in http:/…

Note that none of these languages have dependent types and that feature is sometimes impossible to add in full generic power after the fact without completely breaking existing code.

Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be frank, the src/ folder is the compiler for Mirth written in Mirth , so there's your example code. However, I do agree that a quick introduction would not be out of place.

But the first thing I want to about C is not a compiler written in C. That's an unfriendly intro to almost any language. I want to see a procedure call, "Hello world" I/O, some math or string manipulation, and how to run that myself. After that I can look at compiler sources.

LISP is a notable exception. Btw, I do believe a compiler should be one of the examples of a new language.

Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

#36
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the first thing I want to about C is not a compiler written in C. That's an unfriendly intro to almost any language. I want to see a procedure call, "Hello world" I/O, some math or string manipulation, and how to run that myself. After that I can look at compiler sources.

LISP is a notable exception. Btw, I do believe a compiler should be one of the examples of a new language.

FWIW, concatinative languages are even simpler than Lisp.

Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

#39

I was interested by the title, but it really needs a quick-start + examples in the readme.

Some examples here: https://twitter.com/afsofia_/status/1105913438650486784

I have no idea how to read or make sense of these definitions. I mean semantically and grammatically. What should I read if I want to understand those snippets and how/why they do define what an addition is?

Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language

#40
post #33
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There exist other languages in the category, e.g. https://kittenlang.org/ , http://www.factorcode.org/ , https://github.com/cdiggins/cat-language , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language) . I assume the parent poster referred to improving those (or at least explaining which deficiencies of those myrth is addressing). (In case you didn't already, you can read about this family of languages in http:/…

Note that none of these languages have dependent types and that feature is sometimes impossible to add in full generic power after the fact without completely breaking existing code.

Does mirth? I've been perusing the code and haven't seen anything like that so far.
Post reply on HN