5 ms·

I find these languages that are developed behind closed doors and have no source published a bit frustrating. Even more so when they make big promises. Just li

I find these languages that are developed behind closed doors and have no source published a bit frustrating. Even more so when they make big promises. Just like you can no longer charge for compiler, I don't think it's possible in the future to not publish the source. The truth is, there are plenty of actual open source alternatives to C (zig, et al.), what makes some shadowy language a reasonable alternative?

asplake 7y ago
Not published yet. Perhaps the author considers publishing prematurely to be more hassle than its worth?
- lifthrasiir 7y ago
  If it's the intention, the author surely has been misguided. A drama is already happening (for example, [1]). While I think it is technically possible to deliver all of them (it should be noted that it is not exactly an optimizing compiler, which makes many things easier), it is natural and understandable that people doubt its premise before the full release. [1] https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/35 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/35
  - amedvednikov 7y ago
    I'd hardly call it a drama. Claims like it's not possible to build features without AST or codegen json decoders are just ridiculous.
    - gingerBill 7y ago
      That is not what I stated in the issue. For the kind of features that you wanted in your language, not just generics, requires a form of AST (abstract syntax tree), and if you language does not have an AST, which is technically possible, then you cannot have a lot of the features you have been advertising.
      - lifthrasiir 7y ago
        I should stress that that is also your misconception. For example, you can implement generics without an AST if you don't care about performance; codegen can either output a single binary mandatorily requiring a sort of vtable (therefore every parametric code will be indirected), or output a partial binary with holes where holes will be patched later (much faster but disallows optimization across hole boundaries). You should have framed your question as follows: those features can be implemented without an AST, but an AST is a standard and reasonable way to do them and not using an AST would require a strong rationale. So what's that rationale? (And amedvednikov, this is my question for you.)
        amedvednikov 7y ago
        No you don't understand :) It's IMPOSSIBLE without AST. The Odin creator says so. That's why I'm a liar. V simply generates functions for every type they're used with.
        lifthrasiir 7y ago
        > V simply generates functions for every type it's used with. So you have a "template" function as written in the source code and a list of actual functions generated. You can either generate them as a final step or on the fly as you encounter; in either ways you probably have a mapping from the function name to the function body or something similar. How is that stored?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- olliej 7y ago
  But producing a flashy website is not?
soup10 7y ago
99% of new programming languages are "someone thought it would be fun to make a new programming language" with no real effort to make it genuinely useful and good for real world use
- esimov 7y ago
  99% of percent of the new programming languages are nothing more than a syntactic sugar over an existing language, and 99% percent of their developers are developing without any real use case and. I suppose they are made only to collect some money (by donations eventually). As they are developed they are immediately forgotten.

asplake 7y ago

Not published yet. Perhaps the author considers publishing prematurely to be more hassle than its worth?

lifthrasiir 7y ago
If it's the intention, the author surely has been misguided. A drama is already happening (for example, [1]). While I think it is technically possible to deliver all of them (it should be noted that it is not exactly an optimizing compiler, which makes many things easier), it is natural and understandable that people doubt its premise before the full release. [1] https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/35 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/35
- amedvednikov 7y ago
  I'd hardly call it a drama. Claims like it's not possible to build features without AST or codegen json decoders are just ridiculous.
  - gingerBill 7y ago
    That is not what I stated in the issue. For the kind of features that you wanted in your language, not just generics, requires a form of AST (abstract syntax tree), and if you language does not have an AST, which is technically possible, then you cannot have a lot of the features you have been advertising.
    - lifthrasiir 7y ago
      I should stress that that is also your misconception. For example, you can implement generics without an AST if you don't care about performance; codegen can either output a single binary mandatorily requiring a sort of vtable (therefore every parametric code will be indirected), or output a partial binary with holes where holes will be patched later (much faster but disallows optimization across hole boundaries). You should have framed your question as follows: those features can be implemented without an AST, but an AST is a standard and reasonable way to do them and not using an AST would require a strong rationale. So what's that rationale? (And amedvednikov, this is my question for you.)
      - amedvednikov 7y ago
        No you don't understand :) It's IMPOSSIBLE without AST. The Odin creator says so. That's why I'm a liar. V simply generates functions for every type they're used with.
        lifthrasiir 7y ago
        > V simply generates functions for every type it's used with. So you have a "template" function as written in the source code and a list of actual functions generated. You can either generate them as a final step or on the fly as you encounter; in either ways you probably have a mapping from the function name to the function body or something similar. How is that stored?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
olliej 7y ago
But producing a flashy website is not?

soup10 7y ago

99% of new programming languages are "someone thought it would be fun to make a new programming language" with no real effort to make it genuinely useful and good for real world use

esimov 7y ago
99% of percent of the new programming languages are nothing more than a syntactic sugar over an existing language, and 99% percent of their developers are developing without any real use case and. I suppose they are made only to collect some money (by donations eventually). As they are developed they are immediately forgotten.