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

The Flix Programming Language

flix.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#91

Post by wavemode »

ReleaseCandidat wrote: post #30
usrbinbash wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. In theory, writing in a functional language that allows only "pure" functions (aka. functions w.o. side effects), makes it easier to control state. In practice, side effects exists and are required for programs to do anything useful. In my opinion, one mistake of many purely functional languages was to be so focused on this purity, that it made it needlessly hard to write useful code in them, especially f…

> The irony is, that FP could probably have had a lot more success if it didn't clamour on about pure functions so much Except functional languages like Lisps and the MLs never were pure, the only (used by a significant number of people) has been Miranda/Haskell (ignoring Coq and the other proof assistents). Or, to put it in other words: ML (no, not that ML) turned 50 this year, Scheme is oder than 50 too and Miranda…

Lisp is not a functional programming language.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#92

Post by wavemode »

brabel wrote: post #37
usrbinbash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Functional Programming was, for a long time, talked about as yet-another-solution to solve the issue of complexity in larger codebases, primarily the complexity of controlling state getting out o hand. Similar to OOP, which promised to do this by encapsulating state, FP promised to do this via purity, aka. getting rid of as much state as possible, and only allowing stateful transition at certain well defined sections…

> OOP simply came first Not really. Lisp is a functional programming language and has existed since at least 1960. Some claim there were many other proto-functional languages since the early 60's, and the FP language [1] (a clearly functional programming language and the result of the famous paper "Can Programming Be Liberated From the von Neumann Style?") appeared in 1977 - was inspired by much earlier efforts like…

Lisp is not a functional programming language.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#93

Post by criloz2 »

thefourthchime wrote: post #24

In today's world, i think that English is the only programming language that people should focus on. With the rapid rise of AI, most tasks will soon involve the management of AI models rather than writing code. However, it is still important to have a basic understanding of coding. Introducing a new programming language at this point seems silly to me.

I thought that jokes were not allowed here

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#94

Post by karmakaze »

sureglymop wrote: post #42
troupo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a pragmatic combination of functional and non-functional. Many functional zealots aim for a purity beyond all reason and comprehension. When what you really want is something like Erlang/Elixir or even C#.

What you want is something like Kotlin.

I would say F# or OCaml, or Flix as we see here--this language may not be for you.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#95

Post by Too »

nrabulinski wrote: post #88
Too wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not something human readable? pure vs mut? Other languages already have readable keywords in the function definition; extends, raises, where, having, Optional, and so on. They don’t feel unnecessarily verbose.

Because they’re working on algebraic effects so obviously IO won’t be the only effect out there. Also because “mut” is even more misleading as it doesn’t capture everything an “IO function” can do, in comparison to a pure function.

”mutates IO”? Anything is better than /{}. I don’t know, maybe one gets accustomed to it after a while? It would be rather verbose to write “returns Foo” everywhere. I’m just looking at this with fresh eyes and this aspect of the language is a token-soup. Other parts look neat though.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#96

Post by trealira »

usrbinbash wrote: post #70
brabel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not a pedantic comment. Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. In fact, Lisp was much more popular than any OOP language for a long time, OOP only took the world by storm with C++ and Java, much, much later.

> Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. No it isn't, because the history relevant for this question doesn't begin at the very start of programming. Most programmers active today didn't go to university in the 60s. In the timeframe relevant to answer this question, the people were indeed confronted with OOP languages, and FP languages were already a niche topi…

I'm going to guess that most programmers active today didn't go to university in the 1980s, either (that would mean they were born in the 1960s, which would put put their current age somewhere in their 60s). So there's no point in ignoring the 60s and starting history during the 1980s when most programmers didn't start programming until later decades.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#97

Post by [deleted] »

usrbinbash wrote: post #70
brabel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not a pedantic comment. Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. In fact, Lisp was much more popular than any OOP language for a long time, OOP only took the world by storm with C++ and Java, much, much later.

> Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. No it isn't, because the history relevant for this question doesn't begin at the very start of programming. Most programmers active today didn't go to university in the 60s. In the timeframe relevant to answer this question, the people were indeed confronted with OOP languages, and FP languages were already a niche topi…

[deleted]

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#98

Post by jghn »

usrbinbash wrote: post #70
brabel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not a pedantic comment. Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. In fact, Lisp was much more popular than any OOP language for a long time, OOP only took the world by storm with C++ and Java, much, much later.

> Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. No it isn't, because the history relevant for this question doesn't begin at the very start of programming. Most programmers active today didn't go to university in the 60s. In the timeframe relevant to answer this question, the people were indeed confronted with OOP languages, and FP languages were already a niche topi…

There's a difference between saying "for most active developers, they learned OOP first" and "OOP came first"

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#99

Post by kuchta »

amelius wrote: post #75
shimst3r wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the GitHub repo, it’s written in Scala.

Ok, then I'll wait until they start dogfooding ;) Looks incredibly cool though.

It doesn't make much sense to self-host compiler unless there is a significant community (resources) or you don't want to write another compiler in it.

Re: The Flix Programming Language

#100

Post by sekao »

kaba0 wrote: post #77
sekao wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zig and Go both let you silence the error with `_ = myvar`. It can still be annoying, but it avoids the recursive problem you mentioned. Language design is hard, and it's best to not just assume that people are "idiotic" for not thinking the way you do. Turn the volume down a bit, and maybe find a synonym for "literally" for the sake of variety.

So now you just silenced a warning and transformed it into a semantically correct form you have no way of recognizing from afar, making the original problem 10-fold worse. It is a brain-dead feature, verbatim if you prefer that word.

You know, I used to think that design was a nuanced grappling of complex tradeoffs, but you convinced me: those you disagree with are just "brain-dead" "idiots". I think there is a relevant quote by Charles Bukowski about confidence, but it escapes me...
Post reply on HN