Why do we need yet another language instead of improving the existing ones?
Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
31–40 of 76 posts
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#32Does anyone know how Github chooses which languages to adopt in their language detector?
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#33Earlier 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:/…
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#34I thought for a second this was a post on Mirth Connect and I had flashbacks to doing hl7 integrations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirth_Connect
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#35Earlier 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.
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#36Earlier 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.
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#37Why do we need yet another language instead of improving the existing ones?
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#38I love the syntax. Does anyone know how Github chooses which languages to adopt in their language detector?
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#39I 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
Re: Mirth – a type-safe concatenative purely functional programming language
#40Earlier 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.