The Lux Programming Language

Post by belorn » Wed, May 06, 2015, 7:53 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #48

afshin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by "virality" what was meant was that GPL libraries "infect" non-GPL because the larger work must also be released as GPL. For programming languages, though, this should not be an issue, unless somebody is bundling the whole interpreter/compiler with their app.

> I think by "virality" what was meant was that GPL libraries "infect" non-GPL because the larger work must also be released as GPL. For programming languages, though, this should not be an issue, unless somebody is bundling the whole interpreter/compiler with their app. For programming languages that include a prelude or standard library on which most actual programs will rely on in whole or in part, it may be probl…

This is why almost all free programming languages has their standard library under licenses like LGPL. That license was was created by the free software foundation for the glibc, in order to give direct permission to compile and ship non-free software that uses it.

Post by dllthomas » Thu, May 07, 2015, 4:56 AM UTC

eduardoejp wrote: post #24

jonnybgood wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you want Frege, no? https://github.com/Frege/frege

I wanted a Lisp, not just a functional language. I also wanted to push things forward in some aspects, like having the module system, first-class types & having higher interaction with the compiler. Also, Haskell & macros don't seem to mix so well, and meta-programming is a big deal for me.

"Also, Haskell & macros don't seem to mix so well, and meta-programming is a big deal for me."

With the ability to manipulate more of the components of your programs in regular code, macros become less important. But if you want to do compile-time metaprogramming in Haskell, Template Haskell is effective - typed or untyped.

Re: The Lux Programming Language

Re: The Lux Programming Language