4 ms·

I am not sure exactly what qualifies as ""look at how smart I am" bullshit", but as someone making a toy language, exploring how a concept taken to its extreme

I am not sure exactly what qualifies as ""look at how smart I am" bullshit", but as someone making a toy language, exploring how a concept taken to its extreme in a language re-contextualizes other features is the main purpose of making it. I have made a fair number of decisions against ergonomics in favor of less objectively important ideals because I don't plan to support people working on real problems. However, I do plan to make a self-hosting compiler though so I will have to deal with any issues I do make. > that authors of such projects seem unable to resist It definitely is very tempting to add things beyond the scope of a useful language (at a toy scale). I restricted myself from most such things by requiring strict C compatibility. You can't have a fancy type system and interop with C strongly.

caspper69 7y ago
> You can't have a fancy type system and interop with C strongly ATS would disagree with this statement, strongly.
- tzjmetron 7y ago
  Please don't make me relive nightmares of trying to learn the language.
- thethirdone 7y ago
  I haven't used ATS, but I don't think it interops strongly. Hows does calling a ATS function with fancy typed arguments from C work? My idea of strong interop is not having to write any glue code at all and being able to call any function. I assume there are some types that don't interface with C well. That said, thanks for mentioning it. I should keep it in mind as it does do some of the stuff I want my language to.
  - TurboHaskal 7y ago
    Grep for "Exporting Types in ATS for Use in C" in http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/INT2PROGINATS/HTML/INT2PROGINATS-BOOK-onechunk.html#Cinteraction http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/INT2PROGINATS/HTML/...
    - jcelerier 7y ago
      typedef struct { int atslab__0; void *atslab__1; } int_and_string ; very strong typing right there...
  - caspper69 7y ago
    I apologize for being ambiguous. You wouldn't gain the benefits of ATS by interfacing with its C bindings from C. You would gain safety and security in interfacing with unsafe C on the ATS side through the ATS type system. I was speaking about interfacing in the opposite direction.
    - thethirdone 7y ago
      > I apologize for being ambiguous. No need to apologize. I also should have been more clear about what I meant by strong interoperability. > I was speaking about interfacing in the opposite direction. I think that having really strong interoperability requires both directions, but the being called from C is the one that is more restrictive on fancy types.
      - caspper69 7y ago
        Unfortunately, C is C, and we all know what that means. Anything that achieves true type safety in both directions in going to be a monstrosity on the C side. Lots of boilerplate, marshalling of types, etc. It all starts to look like COM, lol. Take care man.

caspper69 7y ago

> You can't have a fancy type system and interop with C strongly ATS would disagree with this statement, strongly.

tzjmetron 7y ago
Please don't make me relive nightmares of trying to learn the language.
thethirdone 7y ago
I haven't used ATS, but I don't think it interops strongly. Hows does calling a ATS function with fancy typed arguments from C work? My idea of strong interop is not having to write any glue code at all and being able to call any function. I assume there are some types that don't interface with C well. That said, thanks for mentioning it. I should keep it in mind as it does do some of the stuff I want my language to.
- TurboHaskal 7y ago
  Grep for "Exporting Types in ATS for Use in C" in http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/INT2PROGINATS/HTML/INT2PROGINATS-BOOK-onechunk.html#Cinteraction http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/INT2PROGINATS/HTML/...
  - jcelerier 7y ago
    typedef struct { int atslab__0; void *atslab__1; } int_and_string ; very strong typing right there...
- caspper69 7y ago
  I apologize for being ambiguous. You wouldn't gain the benefits of ATS by interfacing with its C bindings from C. You would gain safety and security in interfacing with unsafe C on the ATS side through the ATS type system. I was speaking about interfacing in the opposite direction.
  - thethirdone 7y ago
    > I apologize for being ambiguous. No need to apologize. I also should have been more clear about what I meant by strong interoperability. > I was speaking about interfacing in the opposite direction. I think that having really strong interoperability requires both directions, but the being called from C is the one that is more restrictive on fancy types.
    - caspper69 7y ago
      Unfortunately, C is C, and we all know what that means. Anything that achieves true type safety in both directions in going to be a monstrosity on the C side. Lots of boilerplate, marshalling of types, etc. It all starts to look like COM, lol. Take care man.