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

Dada, an experimental new programming language

dada-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 428 posts

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#31

Post by abdusco »

secondcoming wrote: post #28
yamrzou wrote: post #6

Their Hello, Dada! example: print("...").await I'm coming from Python, and I can't help but ask: If my goal as a programmer is to simply print to the console, why should I care about the await? This already starts with a non zero complexity and some cognitive load, like the `public static void main` from Java.

Surely `public static void main` has less congnitive load than if __name__ == "__main__": main()

You don't have to do this, though. You can have an entrypoint.py that simply calls `main()` without that if. You don't even need to have modules if you want to, so you can write your functions and call them right after.

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#32

Post by dartos »

happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

That sounds… bad?

The whole point of rusts type system is to try to ensure safe memory usage.

Opinions are opinions, but if I’m letting my runtime handle memory for me, I’d want a lighter weight, more expressive type system.

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#33

Post by [deleted] »

happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

[deleted]

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#34

Post by cmrdporcupine »

happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

... so OCaml or StandardML then

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#35

Post by dartos »

DinaCoder99 wrote: post #17
baq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say you want something like 'debug_msg()' for this. 'print()' should be async because it does IO. In the real world most likely you'd see the output once you yield.

Huh, typically print is the debug message function vs explicitly writing to stdout

I don’t think so.

Normally print isn’t a debug message function, people just use it like that. (it normally works on non debug builds)

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#36

Post by withinboredom »

Alifatisk wrote: post #13
yamrzou wrote: post #6

Their Hello, Dada! example: print("...").await I'm coming from Python, and I can't help but ask: If my goal as a programmer is to simply print to the console, why should I care about the await? This already starts with a non zero complexity and some cognitive load, like the `public static void main` from Java.

The reasoning with await is valid, it's an I/O call, but the await should maybe be hidden inside the print then?

It MIGHT or might NOT be valid, it depends. In a lot of cases, I might just want to print, but not yield "right here," but later (if at all in the current method). Further, writing to i/o is usually non-blocking (assuming the buffers are big enough for whatever you are writing), so in this case, the await literally makes no sense.

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#37

Post by malermeister »

happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

You might like Kotlin. It'll also give you access to the entire JVM ecosystem.

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#38

Post by iainmerrick »

happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

TypeScript maybe?

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#39

Post by overstay8930 »

happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

You have awoken the ocaml gang

Re: Dada, an experimental new programming language

#40

Post by School-Cotton »

dartos wrote: post #32
happens wrote: post #25

It's weird, I want pretty much the exact opposite of this: a language with the expressive type system and syntax of rust, but with a garbage collector and a runtime at the cost performance. Basically go, but with rusts type system. I'm aware that there are a few languages that come close to this (crystal iirc), but in the end it's adoption and the ecosystem that keeps me from using them.

That sounds… bad? The whole point of rusts type system is to try to ensure safe memory usage. Opinions are opinions, but if I’m letting my runtime handle memory for me, I’d want a lighter weight, more expressive type system.

I’m assuming by rust’s type system they mean without lifetimes. In which case it’s existed in lots of GC languages (OCaml, Haskell) but no mainstream ones. It isn’t really related to needing a GC or not.
Post reply on HN