3 ms·

> We want the compiler to understand what we mean without having to specify types everywhere. If they are looking for complainers about having to specify type

by rubyfan 11y ago

> We want the compiler to understand what we mean without having to specify types everywhere. If they are looking for complainers about having to specify type on Array and Hash declaration I'll complain... It's seriously one of the problems with Crystal that kept me away. I'd guess some other rubyists are turned off by specifying types. Specifying types everywhere basically takes Ruby-like syntax and makes it look like Scala or Rust. Why bother with a fully typed Crystal then when similar alternatives have greater support and other advantages?

hzhou321 11y ago
If we observe how us human communicate, we see a lot of guessing. Human languages are all ambiguous and their great efficiency depend on (intuitive) guesses -- in expensive guesses. We make guesses as we listen/read, but we do not commit our guesses; rather we modify our guesses as we accumulate further information. Now imagine if we forbid ourselves to modify our guesses, you'll see how understanding natural language a forbidding task ... Compilation is essentially a guess of meaning with no room for modifications -- neither self-modifications nor post-hoc modifications. So it is doomed for inefficiency or un-trackable difficulties. I believe the right way for the future of programming is multi-stage compilation -- with first meta-compilation followed with static compilation. Currently our compilation only refers to the latter. The meta compilation produces human readable intermediate result -- not much different from our current code in C or Java and it will be as easy to feedback from as we do today in C or Java. However the meta-compilations takes many guesses and quite often adventurous guesses but the coder can easily tell whether it is on-track or guessed wrong. When the coder detect the meta-compilation guessed wrong, he will simply modify his source code -- slight change styles or simply write the code in a different way (which is not much different from human communication when we say "what I meant was ..."); or, in a few specific or difficult cases, the coder may opt to directly modify the intermediate code (C or Java or any of current popular languages) -- not much different from natural language when we reduce to more specific way as we write laws and contracts. I have been exploring such idea with MyDef -- a meta programming system -- and have been more convinced it is the more sensible way (than trying to make break-throughs in the mature field of programming languages).

by rubyfan 11y ago

hzhou321 11y ago

If we observe how us human communicate, we see a lot of guessing. Human languages are all ambiguous and their great efficiency depend on (intuitive) guesses -- in expensive guesses. We make guesses as we listen/read, but we do not commit our guesses; rather we modify our guesses as we accumulate further information. Now imagine if we forbid ourselves to modify our guesses, you'll see how understanding natural language a forbidding task ... Compilation is essentially a guess of meaning with no room for modifications -- neither self-modifications nor post-hoc modifications. So it is doomed for inefficiency or un-trackable difficulties. I believe the right way for the future of programming is multi-stage compilation -- with first meta-compilation followed with static compilation. Currently our compilation only refers to the latter. The meta compilation produces human readable intermediate result -- not much different from our current code in C or Java and it will be as easy to feedback from as we do today in C or Java. However the meta-compilations takes many guesses and quite often adventurous guesses but the coder can easily tell whether it is on-track or guessed wrong. When the coder detect the meta-compilation guessed wrong, he will simply modify his source code -- slight change styles or simply write the code in a different way (which is not much different from human communication when we say "what I meant was ..."); or, in a few specific or difficult cases, the coder may opt to directly modify the intermediate code (C or Java or any of current popular languages) -- not much different from natural language when we reduce to more specific way as we write laws and contracts. I have been exploring such idea with MyDef -- a meta programming system -- and have been more convinced it is the more sensible way (than trying to make break-throughs in the mature field of programming languages).