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

Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

pure-systems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#71

Post by adrian_b »

While using "monads" in functional languages is a neat trick, I do not like them.

In my opinion, the concept of automaton is fundamental and it deserves equal standing with the concept of function (even if it is a higher level concept that is built upon that of function).

I believe that functional programming is preferable wherever it is naturally applicable, and most programs have components of this kind, but most complete application programs, i.e. which do input and output actions, are automata, not functions and it is better to not attempt to masquerade this with tricks that provide no benefits.

Therefore, I prefer a programming language that has a pure functional subset, allowing the use of that subset where desirable, but which also has standard imperative features (e.g. assignment), to be used where appropriate.

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#73

Post by robaato »

faangguyindia wrote: post #32

These days I just use a few languages: 1. Go, when I first saw code I wrote almost a decade ago still compiles and runs in Go, I decided to use Go for everything. There were some initial troubles when I started using it a decade ago, but now it's painless. 2. Haskell, I use it for DSL and state machines. 3. Bash for all deployment scripts and everything. 4. TypeScript, well for the frontend. Lately, I’ve been using G…

Which Sqlite library are you using? With or without cgo?

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#75

Post by dominicrose »

faangguyindia wrote: post #32

These days I just use a few languages: 1. Go, when I first saw code I wrote almost a decade ago still compiles and runs in Go, I decided to use Go for everything. There were some initial troubles when I started using it a decade ago, but now it's painless. 2. Haskell, I use it for DSL and state machines. 3. Bash for all deployment scripts and everything. 4. TypeScript, well for the frontend. Lately, I’ve been using G…

IME Ruby is really good for working alone on tiny projects without an IDE (trying to get more than syntax highlighting causes problems). Sometimes I write single-file scripts or even just use interactive Ruby.

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#76

Post by HelloNurse »

tux1968 wrote: post #4
dnautics wrote: post #2

io is not a monad. theres nothing stopping you from stashing a global io "object" and just passing the global wherever you interface with the stdlib. It's dependency injection . and yes, you can model dependecies like a monad but most people, even in less pure fp langs, don't. i don't really say this to just be a pedant, but if you're an fp enjoyer, you will be disappointed if you get the picture that zig is fp-like,…

My reading of the article, was that the author seems to be in search of a new paradigm, that moves beyond what he sees as the limitations of "fp-like" languages as they exist today. His point appears to be that Zig provides the benefits of "fp-like" languages that exist today, while avoiding at least some of the downsides. And he does admit you may have to squint, to appreciate the fp capabilities provided by Zig.

It is worth noting that some rather "enlightened" type system features are common in other imperative languages, not particularly novel ides in Zig.

For example Swift enums, while in some ways clunky, can do a decent job both as newtypes and as sum types (unlike Java enums, which are a fixed collection of instances of the same class).

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#77

Post by raincole »

faangguyindia wrote: post #32

These days I just use a few languages: 1. Go, when I first saw code I wrote almost a decade ago still compiles and runs in Go, I decided to use Go for everything. There were some initial troubles when I started using it a decade ago, but now it's painless. 2. Haskell, I use it for DSL and state machines. 3. Bash for all deployment scripts and everything. 4. TypeScript, well for the frontend. Lately, I’ve been using G…

The funny thing is how ubiquitous TypeScript/JavaScript is. There is no escape. I also only use four languages: C#, F# (for DSL), Powershell (for deployment) and... TypeScript.

Despite we have different tastes in language and are in completely different ecosystems, TypeScript is still the lingua franca lol.

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#78

Post by noelwelsh »

tome wrote: post #61

I don't understand why Zig's `Io` is a "monad". In fact I discussed that with the author of this article and the author of Zig here, but no conclusion was reached ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46129568 ). But, flipping the script, if you want to see something like Zig's `Io` interface in Haskell then have a look at my capability system Bluefin, particularly Bluefin.IO. The equivalent of Zig's `Io` is called…

Agreed, Zig's IO is closer to the effect handler / capability passing model. And by closer, I mean exactly the same [1]. However, it's related to monads by duality. A comonadic program is a program that depends on context, which captures the notion of passing capabilities around.

[1] Languages designed around capability passing often have other features, like capture checking to ensure capabilities aren't used outside the scope where they are active. There are only two such languages I know of. Effekt (see https://effekt-lang.org/tour/captures) and Scala 3 (see https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/experimental/cc...) However, this is not core to the idea of capability passing.

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#79

Post by uxcolumbo »

arikrahman wrote: post #47
faangguyindia wrote: post #32

These days I just use a few languages: 1. Go, when I first saw code I wrote almost a decade ago still compiles and runs in Go, I decided to use Go for everything. There were some initial troubles when I started using it a decade ago, but now it's painless. 2. Haskell, I use it for DSL and state machines. 3. Bash for all deployment scripts and everything. 4. TypeScript, well for the frontend. Lately, I’ve been using G…

I went the same way but with only using Lisp dialects like Elisp and Clojure and Nix. Although I would ditch Nix too if another Lisp could supplant it too.

I'm curious about your Clojure setup. Same as GO, I think Clojure has very strong backwards compatibility.

If trying to avoid the cloud, like OP, which hosting option is suitable for Clojure, what do you use? I believe Clojure (JVM) has higher RAM requirements?

And GO has pocketbase.io which looks quite interesting. Do know whether something similar exists for Clojure, or maybe it's straightforward enough to compose your own by using various Clojure libs?

Re: Functional programmers need to take a look at Zig

#80

Post by psychoslave »

tome wrote: post #61

I don't understand why Zig's `Io` is a "monad". In fact I discussed that with the author of this article and the author of Zig here, but no conclusion was reached ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46129568 ). But, flipping the script, if you want to see something like Zig's `Io` interface in Haskell then have a look at my capability system Bluefin, particularly Bluefin.IO. The equivalent of Zig's `Io` is called…

I guess that if a burrito can illustrate what is a monad, anything can be casted as a projection of a monad in some perspective.

https://i.imgflip.com/65gu3j.jpg

Post reply on HN