71–80 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone grafted Zig style macros into Common Lisp?
Isn’t this kind of thing sort of the default thing in Lisp? Code is data so you can transform it.
The innovation in Zig is the restrictions that limit the power of macros.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this is a bad place to ask, but: Those experienced in manual-memory langs: What in particular do you find cumbersome about the borrow system? I've hit some annoyances like when splitting up struct fields into params where more than one is mutable, but that's the only friction point that comes to mind. I ask because I am obvious blind to other cases - that's what I'm curious about! I generally find the &s to be…
Lifetimes add an impending sense of doom to writing any sort of deeply nested code. You get this deep without writing a lifetime... uh oh, this struct needs a reference, and now you need to add a generic parameter to everything everywhere you've ever written and it feels miserable. Doubly so when you've accidentally omitted a lifetime generic somewhere and it compiles now but then you do some refactoring and it won't…
This is similar to creating a broadly-used data structure and realizing that some field has to be optional. Option will require you to change everything touching it, and virally spread through all the code that wanted to use that field unconditionally. However, that's not the fault of the Option syntax, it's the fault of semantics of optionality. In languages that don't make this "miserable" at compile time, this problem manifests with a whack-a-mole of NullPointerExceptions at run time.
With experience, I don't get this "oh no, now there's a lifetime popping up everywhere" surprise in Rust any more. Whether something is going to be a temporary view or permanent storage can be known ahead of time, and if it can be both, it can be designed with Cow-like types.
I also got a sense for when using a temporary loan is a premature optimization. All data has to be stored somewhere (you can't have a reference to data that hasn't been stored). Designs that try to be ultra-efficient by allowing only temporary references often force data to be stored in a temporary location first, and then borrowed, which doesn't avoid any allocations, only adds dependencies on external storage. Instead, the design can support moving or collecting data into owned (non-temporary) storage directly. It can then keep it for an arbirary lifetime without lifetime annotations, and hand out temporary references to it whenever needed. The run-time cost can be the same, but the semantics are much easier to work with.
Yes! To me, the uniqueness of Zig's comptime is a combination of two things: 1. comtpime replaces many other features that would be specialised in other languages with or without rich compile-time (or runtime) metaprogramming, and 2. comptime is referentially transparent [1], that makes it strictly "weaker" than AST macros, but simpler to understand; what's surprising is just how capable you can be with a comptime me…
I was a bit confused by the remark that comptime is referentially transparent. I'm familiar with the term as it's used in functional programming to mean that an expression can be replaced by its value (stemming from it having no side-effects). However, from a quick search I found an old related comment by you [1] that clarified this for me. If I understand correctly you're using the term in a different (perhaps more…
I don’t understand this.
If I am cross-compiling a program is it not true that comptime code literally executes on my local host machine? Like, isn’t that literally the definition of “compile-time”?
If there is an endian architecture change I could see Zig choosing to emulate the target machine on the host machine.
This feels so wrong to me. HostPlatform and TargetPlatform can be different. That’s fine! Hiding the host platform seems wrong. Can aomeone explain why you want to hide this seemingly critical fact?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% on board the cross-compile train. And Zig does it literally better than any other compiled language that I know. So what am I missing?
Or wait. I guess the key is that, unlike Jai, comptime Zig code does NOT run at compile time. It merely refers to things that are KNOWN at compile time? Wait that’s not right either. I’m confused.
Yes! To me, the uniqueness of Zig's comptime is a combination of two things: 1. comtpime replaces many other features that would be specialised in other languages with or without rich compile-time (or runtime) metaprogramming, and 2. comptime is referentially transparent [1], that makes it strictly "weaker" than AST macros, but simpler to understand; what's surprising is just how capable you can be with a comptime me…
Yes! To me, the uniqueness of Zig's comptime is a combination of two things: 1. comtpime replaces many other features that would be specialised in other languages with or without rich compile-time (or runtime) metaprogramming, and 2. comptime is referentially transparent [1], that makes it strictly "weaker" than AST macros, but simpler to understand; what's surprising is just how capable you can be with a comptime me…
I was a bit confused by the remark that comptime is referentially transparent. I'm familiar with the term as it's used in functional programming to mean that an expression can be replaced by its value (stemming from it having no side-effects). However, from a quick search I found an old related comment by you [1] that clarified this for me. If I understand correctly you're using the term in a different (perhaps more…
The expression `i++` in C is not a value in C (although it is a "value" in some semantic descriptions of C), yet a C expression that contains `i++` and cannot distinguish between `i++` and any other C operation that increments i by 1, is referentially transparent, which is pretty much all C expressions except for those involving C macros.
Macros are not referentially transparent because they can distinguish between, say, a variable whose name is `foo` and is equal to 3 and a variable whose name is `bar` and is equal to 3. In other words, their outcome may differ not just by what is being referenced (3) but also by how it's referenced (`foo` or `bar`), hence they're referentially opaque.
Yes! To me, the uniqueness of Zig's comptime is a combination of two things: 1. comtpime replaces many other features that would be specialised in other languages with or without rich compile-time (or runtime) metaprogramming, and 2. comptime is referentially transparent [1], that makes it strictly "weaker" than AST macros, but simpler to understand; what's surprising is just how capable you can be with a comptime me…
Regarding 2. How are comptime values restricted to total computations? Is it just by the fact that the compiler actually finished, or are there any restrictions on comptime evaluations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in Spanish here: https://www.poeticous.com/borges/el-disco?locale=es (Not having much Spanish, I at first thought "Odin's disco(teque)" and then "no, that doesn't make sense about sides", but then, surely primed by English "disco", thought "it must mean Odin's record/lp/album".)
Odin's records have no B-sides, because everything Odin writes is fire!
> Zig’s comptime feature is most famous for what it can do: generics!, conditional compilation!, subtyping!, serialization!, ORM! That’s fascinating, but, to be fair, there’s a bunch of languages with quite powerful compile time evaluation capabilities that can do equivalent things. I'm curious what are these other languages that can do these things? I read HN regularly but don't recall them. Or maybe that's includin…
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of annotation processing either. It's simultaneously heavyweight and unwieldy, and yet doesn't do enough. You get all the annoyance of working with a full-blown AST, and none of the power that comes with being able to manipulate an AST. Annotations themselves are pretty great, and AFAIK, they are most widely used with reflection or bytecode rewriting instead. I get that the maintainers dislike…
Note that more intrusive changes -- including not only bytecode-rewriting agents, but also the use of those AST-modifying "libraries" (really, languages) -- require command-line flags that tell you that the semantics of code may be impacted by some other code that is identified in those flags. This is part of "integrity by default": https://openjdk.org/jeps/8305968