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

Rye Language

ryelang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 61 posts

Re: Rye Language

#2

Post by galaxyLogic »

This sounds cool:

"Every active component in Rye is a function (if, loop, for, fn, return, extends, context). No keywords, no special forms."

It should make the language much simpler than other languages. The challenge of programming is dealing with copmplexity in code, and if the language takes away much of that complexity it should be a good thing.

Re: Rye Language

#3

Post by middayc »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

This sounds cool: "Every active component in Rye is a function (if, loop, for, fn, return, extends, context). No keywords, no special forms." It should make the language much simpler than other languages. The challenge of programming is dealing with copmplexity in code, and if the language takes away much of that complexity it should be a good thing.

Thanks, that comes from it's REBOL base ideas, but maybe it's even more pronounced in Rye where also operators are just "op-word" functions, and any function can be op-word/pipe-word (also the ones above if loop for ...).

Re: Rye Language

#4

Post by galaxyLogic »

middayc wrote: post #3
galaxyLogic wrote: post #2

This sounds cool: "Every active component in Rye is a function (if, loop, for, fn, return, extends, context). No keywords, no special forms." It should make the language much simpler than other languages. The challenge of programming is dealing with copmplexity in code, and if the language takes away much of that complexity it should be a good thing.

Thanks, that comes from it's REBOL base ideas, but maybe it's even more pronounced in Rye where also operators are just "op-word" functions, and any function can be op-word/pipe-word (also the ones above if loop for ...).

Not having studied Rye documentation, is it true that Rye syntax is "minimal"? Compared to for instance Smalltalk?

Re: Rye Language

#6

Post by middayc »

ilyagr wrote: post #5

FYI, Rye is the name of a tool that's gaining popularity in the Python world. https://github.com/astral-sh/rye

I know about Rye package manager since last year. I've made a rye(lang) blogspot and github repository in 2020. I try to use term ryelang in general so there is a distinction. Otherwise, what can I do. I have no spare name and reason to rename right now, at the end, a name is just a name ...

Re: Rye Language

#7

Post by middayc »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #4
middayc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, that comes from it's REBOL base ideas, but maybe it's even more pronounced in Rye where also operators are just "op-word" functions, and any function can be op-word/pipe-word (also the ones above if loop for ...).

Not having studied Rye documentation, is it true that Rye syntax is "minimal"? Compared to for instance Smalltalk?

Yes ... Rye is syntax-wise in similar camp than Lisps, only without parenthesis. Some say Lisp has no syntax (which is debatable), but has a point that there are no syntax rules. There are multiple token types and they always combine / apply in the same ways, there are no special forms like "how to define a function" or "how to write and if else". In Rye calling if or eihter (if/else) is no different than calling any other function.

Re: Rye Language

#8

Post by galaxyLogic »

middayc wrote: post #7
galaxyLogic wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having studied Rye documentation, is it true that Rye syntax is "minimal"? Compared to for instance Smalltalk?

Yes ... Rye is syntax-wise in similar camp than Lisps, only without parenthesis. Some say Lisp has no syntax (which is debatable), but has a point that there are no syntax rules. There are multiple token types and they always combine / apply in the same ways, there are no special forms like "how to define a function" or "how to write and if else". In Rye calling if or eihter (if/else) is no different than calling any…

Note in Smalltalk ifTrue:ifFalse: is similarly just a method/function of the class Boolean. Rye seems very promising.

Re: Rye Language

#9

Post by lispm »

middayc wrote: post #7
galaxyLogic wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having studied Rye documentation, is it true that Rye syntax is "minimal"? Compared to for instance Smalltalk?

Yes ... Rye is syntax-wise in similar camp than Lisps, only without parenthesis. Some say Lisp has no syntax (which is debatable), but has a point that there are no syntax rules. There are multiple token types and they always combine / apply in the same ways, there are no special forms like "how to define a function" or "how to write and if else". In Rye calling if or eihter (if/else) is no different than calling any…

> There are multiple token types and they always combine / apply in the same ways, there are no special forms like "how to define a function" or "how to write and if else". In Rye calling if or eihter (if/else) is no different than calling any other function.

Not in Lisp. In Lisp IF, COND, ... are either special operators or macros which expand to more primitive special operators. They are not functions.

The syntax for COND is:

    cond {clause}* => result*
    clause::= (test-form form*)
For example:

    (cond ((> x 1) (print 'larger) 1)
          ((= x 1) (print 'equal) 1)
          (t       (print 'smaller)))
COND is not a function. It is a macro. In a function call all arguments would be evaluated. But COND does not work that way.

COND has a list of clauses. During evaluation, the first clause is looked at. It's first subform then is evaluated, here (> x 1). If that is true, then the following subforms are evaluated left to right and the values of the last form is returned. If the first subform form was not evaluated to true, the evaluation goes to the next form and repeats the process on the subform.

* COND is not a function

* COND has a special syntax

* COND has a special evaluation rule

The same is the case for defining functions. In Lisp the operator to define a global function is called DEFUN. DEFUN is a macro, not a function. It has special syntax (for example the second element in a DEFUN form needs to be an unevaluated function name, which usually (I omit some detail) needs to be a symbol (which will not be evaluated)...

Again, DEFUN is not a function, it has special syntax and special semantics with side effects during compilation.

Re: Rye Language

#10

Post by middayc »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #8
middayc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes ... Rye is syntax-wise in similar camp than Lisps, only without parenthesis. Some say Lisp has no syntax (which is debatable), but has a point that there are no syntax rules. There are multiple token types and they always combine / apply in the same ways, there are no special forms like "how to define a function" or "how to write and if else". In Rye calling if or eihter (if/else) is no different than calling any…

Note in Smalltalk ifTrue:ifFalse: is similarly just a method/function of the class Boolean. Rye seems very promising.

Thanks! Out of many languages I tried, I have to admit I never really worked with smalltalk. I should one day!
Post reply on HN