3 ms·

What I would be very interested in seeing in an introduction to a new language is an explanation of why the authors think other languages that intend to support

What I would be very interested in seeing in an introduction to a new language is an explanation of why the authors think other languages that intend to support a similar combination of features have failed to achieve that or have failed to get traction. These kinds of introductions always read like "we're going to combine these and these and these awesome features from all your favorite languages" and well, what's not to like? Wouldn't everyone want this? So I can't help but wonder: why didn't anyone previously succeed at creating such a language? What are you going to do differently?

sanxiyn 7y ago
This answer will not satisfy you, but I can answer this as someone who worked on design and implementation of multiple programming languages: Q. why didn't anyone previously succeed? A. Nobody tried. There are a LOT of decisions that go into design and implementation of programming languages. Due to combinatorial explosion, vast majority of combination was never tried. This is still true even after you group "similar" combinations. But usual standard of similarity used by many people is "How is Rust different from Go?", which is too laughable to answer. To me, Scopes seems different enough that the author should not feel any need to answer questions like yours.
- nickpsecurity 7y ago
  I'll add to your answer that a lot of them aren't production-worthy either. That might be the packaging, lacking a standard library, not integrating with whatever is dominant in that space, no docs on basic usage, and so on. This happens with verification tools in CompSci, too. So, they need to get a combination of features to whatever is the minimum of usability the target audience expects. I also push for it to integrate well with legacy libraries with no overhead. Scope author is doing that for C libraries. As a side effect, it's a big boost on productivity since people can always lean on whatever libraries are already there.
  - dTal 7y ago
    I was gonna say - I already have a language with the expressivity of Scheme, the convenience of Python, and the performance of C - it's called "Chez Scheme". Why isn't it popular? Because A) the performant implementation was proprietary until relatively recently, and B) it's less "batteries included" and more "that drawer in your house full of batteries, most of which are dead". There's a great language in there, but it lacks the tooling and social structures for popularity.
    - nickpsecurity 7y ago
      Racket is being ported to Chez Scheme. That might solve the batteries included problem at least at the Racket level. However, if you don't like Racket, then I don't know if it will do anything since using Racket's libraries in Chez might be too kludgy to attempt. https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.h... Since you're a Chez fan, I'll also throw in its historical overview in case you missed it. That they had Scheme on 8-bitters really tripped me out. Talented team. https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf

sanxiyn 7y ago

This answer will not satisfy you, but I can answer this as someone who worked on design and implementation of multiple programming languages: Q. why didn't anyone previously succeed? A. Nobody tried. There are a LOT of decisions that go into design and implementation of programming languages. Due to combinatorial explosion, vast majority of combination was never tried. This is still true even after you group "similar" combinations. But usual standard of similarity used by many people is "How is Rust different from Go?", which is too laughable to answer. To me, Scopes seems different enough that the author should not feel any need to answer questions like yours.

nickpsecurity 7y ago
I'll add to your answer that a lot of them aren't production-worthy either. That might be the packaging, lacking a standard library, not integrating with whatever is dominant in that space, no docs on basic usage, and so on. This happens with verification tools in CompSci, too. So, they need to get a combination of features to whatever is the minimum of usability the target audience expects. I also push for it to integrate well with legacy libraries with no overhead. Scope author is doing that for C libraries. As a side effect, it's a big boost on productivity since people can always lean on whatever libraries are already there.
- dTal 7y ago
  I was gonna say - I already have a language with the expressivity of Scheme, the convenience of Python, and the performance of C - it's called "Chez Scheme". Why isn't it popular? Because A) the performant implementation was proprietary until relatively recently, and B) it's less "batteries included" and more "that drawer in your house full of batteries, most of which are dead". There's a great language in there, but it lacks the tooling and social structures for popularity.
  - nickpsecurity 7y ago
    Racket is being ported to Chez Scheme. That might solve the batteries included problem at least at the Racket level. However, if you don't like Racket, then I don't know if it will do anything since using Racket's libraries in Chez might be too kludgy to attempt. https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.h... Since you're a Chez fan, I'll also throw in its historical overview in case you missed it. That they had Scheme on 8-bitters really tripped me out. Talented team. https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf