71–80 of 80 posts
Why writing a 2021 language in C, instead of Rust?
- If the author already knows some language well, it’s rather inefficient to master another language just to create a new one.
- Rust is likely to be relevant for 11 more years, C is likely to be relevant for 43 more years. Things that have existed for a long time, tend to keep existing longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and so what? it's not the same as using the name of a prominent country it's disrespectful, stupid, and won't help you for SEO or searchability anyways they probably looked for name of birds and stopped there, uncultured
(Mind blown) Maybe try asking before making a fool out of yourself lol. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28823129
^ look what i wrote
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and so what? it's not the same as using the name of a prominent country it's disrespectful, stupid, and won't help you for SEO or searchability anyways they probably looked for name of birds and stopped there, uncultured
Why is it disrespectful? Or “stupid”? What SEO benefit do you think any project expects to get from choosing to share a name with any country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how I learned programming at the university. A function returns something, a procedure doesn't. Koka has something a bit like that with typed effects https://koka-lang.github.io/koka/doc/index.html .
This is one of the big things I love about Haskell. Its way of making effects explicit and easy to spot in the function signature always struck me as insanely useful for exactly those reasons (though, obviously, it goes a step further where every function always has to return something, even if it is an effect or an effected state). In retrospect, I wish Rust had adopted something like this since it took a lot of ins…
Aside from the traits (typeclasses), most of the inspiration actually comes from OCaml/ML rather than Haskell. The philosohpy is also way closer to the pragmatism of OCaml. I think Rust wouldn't be as popular as it is right now if IO needed a monad, like in Haskell. This would have been too much for a single language. I also don't think that monadic IO is the way. Maybe effects system will bring a more usable way of typing effects (Koka, OCaml soon), but I doubt that they'll come to Rust.
so many new programming languages come out that are almost identical to existing ones. Where's the crazy ideas (aside from the esoteric languages, which are different because they're intentionally difficult). I'd love to see more entries in the areas other than OO or procedural languages (or even just a variation on those, like an actor-model language). There's so many ideas in the programming language theory space t…
I'm still waiting for the programming language that doesn't take off on tangentially obscure ideas, but address the three fundamental dimensions of a computer program, state, functionality, and interaction dynamics, on an equal footing and with a clean orthogonal architecture. I've only met this mindset way back in Object-Oriented Modeling and Design 1st Edition, by James R. Rumbaugh et.al. The book is not about prog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the big things I love about Haskell. Its way of making effects explicit and easy to spot in the function signature always struck me as insanely useful for exactly those reasons (though, obviously, it goes a step further where every function always has to return something, even if it is an effect or an effected state). In retrospect, I wish Rust had adopted something like this since it took a lot of ins…
> In retrospect, I wish Rust had adopted something like this since it took a lot of inspiration from Haskell anyways Aside from the traits (typeclasses), most of the inspiration actually comes from OCaml/ML rather than Haskell. The philosohpy is also way closer to the pragmatism of OCaml. I think Rust wouldn't be as popular as it is right now if IO needed a monad, like in Haskell. This would have been too much for a…