4 ms·

It would be great to start a new programming language by stating what sort of actual problem it will solve (or handle better) than the other gazillion languages

It would be great to start a new programming language by stating what sort of actual problem it will solve (or handle better) than the other gazillion languages. Example: Rust -> memory safety, because based on many studies memory safety is responsible for ~70% of bugs. If you are just doing a language for the fun of it is still ok, even though I would be less interested in reading the post. As far as Yatta goes: "allows me to write programs as simple expressions, without having to worry about low-level stuff such as concurrency, with a beautiful syntax and a strong but dynamic type system." The first part is true to I do not know how many languages, the second part is subjective, I think LISP and ML have the best syntax some people throw up after opening the hello world examples.

_bxg1 6y ago
Yeah, nothing is a bigger turn-off for me on the home page for a language or framework than starting off with "Helps you build [some combination of] simple, maintainable, fast, scalable software". No kidding! You and every single other language out there. This one isn't nearly as bad as that, but the point remains: tell me up-front why I should care.
clarry 6y ago
> The first part is true to I do not know how many languages, the second part is subjective And it's fine that way. There are lots of languages out there, and very few of them have any objective problem-solving features to justify their existence. Tackling some problem in a new way like Rust does (arguable, see prior art like Cyclone) is the exception, not the norm. Lots of languages are about improving subjective ergonomy while combining and tweaking features already found in other languages. Would it be fine to state that the language solves nothing for you and you can stop reading? But I don't think that needs to be stated any more than the post already did. Then the rest of the readers, who have an ounce of curiosity left in them, can scroll on and take the time to appreciate the design and see if they like where it's headed.

_bxg1 6y ago

Yeah, nothing is a bigger turn-off for me on the home page for a language or framework than starting off with "Helps you build [some combination of] simple, maintainable, fast, scalable software". No kidding! You and every single other language out there. This one isn't nearly as bad as that, but the point remains: tell me up-front why I should care.

clarry 6y ago

> The first part is true to I do not know how many languages, the second part is subjective And it's fine that way. There are lots of languages out there, and very few of them have any objective problem-solving features to justify their existence. Tackling some problem in a new way like Rust does (arguable, see prior art like Cyclone) is the exception, not the norm. Lots of languages are about improving subjective ergonomy while combining and tweaking features already found in other languages. Would it be fine to state that the language solves nothing for you and you can stop reading? But I don't think that needs to be stated any more than the post already did. Then the rest of the readers, who have an ounce of curiosity left in them, can scroll on and take the time to appreciate the design and see if they like where it's headed.