51–60 of 168 posts
I've read the entire page and still don't know whether or not I can import Go modules in this language, which seems rather important
Looks great. But I can't help wondering: If it is similar to Rust why not make it the the same as Rust where it feature-matches? Why import "foo.bar" instead of use foo::bar? Why Bar.Baz => instead of Bar::Baz =>? What are you achieving here? Why make it subtlety different so someone who knows Rust has to learn yet another language? And someone who doesn't know Rust learns a language that is different enough that the…
I've read the entire page and still don't know whether or not I can import Go modules in this language, which seems rather important
Really? Almost every example imports something from Go, and it states "interoperability with the Go ecosystem" (or similar, from memory).
A programming language similar to Python that compiles to Rust or Go will be amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OCaml has a lot of other cons though that Rust doesn't have. I would definitely pick Rust over OCaml even for projects that can tolerate a runtime with GC pauses. (And clearly most people agree.)
What cons?
I can expand on any of those if you disagree with them.
I've chatted a bit with the author, but not actually tried the language. It looks very interesting, and a clear improvement. I'm not particularly quiet about not liking Go[1]. I do think there may be a limit to how far it can be improved, though. Like typed nil means that a variable of an interface type (say coming from pure Go code) should enter Lisette as Option >. Sure, one can match on Some(Some(h)) to not requir…
Go gives you access to a compute- and memory-efficient concurrent GC that has few or no equivalents elsewhere. It's a great platform for problem domains where GC is truly essential (fiddling with spaghetti-like reference graphs), even though you're giving up the enormous C-FFI ecosystem (unless you use Cgo, which is not really Go in a sense) due to the incompatibilities introduced by Go's weird user-mode stackful fibers approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are an endless number of modern MLs that do the same thing. That's not a novelty - Rust was novel in making it part of a low-level language.
I don't think being low level is the main innovation, really. There are several things Rust did right over traditional ML. Explicitly caring about learnability and the "weirdness budget". Having great error messages that don't require a course in category theory (many ML) or 800kB of scrollback buffer (C++) to understand. Having great tools. Excellent documentation. Being friendly to new users. Yes, it's also a syste…
Being memory safe without being managed is what makes rust a truly novel and interesting language for which it rightfully gets the hype.
Looks great. But I can't help wondering: If it is similar to Rust why not make it the the same as Rust where it feature-matches? Why import "foo.bar" instead of use foo::bar? Why Bar.Baz => instead of Bar::Baz =>? What are you achieving here? Why make it subtlety different so someone who knows Rust has to learn yet another language? And someone who doesn't know Rust learns a language that is different enough that the…