29 ms·

I've been thinking for a while that it's about time a new (maybe jit compiled?) language hits the scene with: - A simplified/sounder natively integrated versio

I've been thinking for a while that it's about time a new (maybe jit compiled?) language hits the scene with: - A simplified/sounder natively integrated version of Typescript's type system - Javascript's easy notation for manipulating objects - None of Javascript's other baggage/cruft - Something akin to go routines Basically, something with the performance of Go/Java (so there would be no need to rewrite your code once it starts serving millions of people) but the elegance of Typescript. Not sure if this is similar to your vision of a "next Python" but it feels somewhat similar. Basically I think right now: C -> Zig C++ -> Rust Java -?-> Go Python/Javascript --> ??? With native typing we could get a language as fast as Java/Go but with the cleanliness of Typescript.

BadInformatics 6y ago
I remember a few years back when Nim was going to be the next big thing here, but unfortunately it never gained that level of traction. Still an interesting language even without bigco levels of support behind it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
valenterry 6y ago
Scala comes very close to that.
- ledauphin 6y ago
  the JVM is an incredibly heavyweight runtime compared to CPython. I don't think we're going to find the next beginner-friendly language coming out of the most professional runtime in human history.
  - pbourke 6y ago
    > incredibly heavyweight runtime The apps may be heavyweight, but the runtime was designed to run on set-top boxes 25 years ago.
    - jaytaylor 6y ago
      The JVM is definitely memory hungry (excluding cherry-picked examples such as 'set top deployments' or the Java Ring from the 90s), moreso than any other language runtime referenced in this discussion.
  - valenterry 6y ago
    True, but I don't think that is what the OP was taking about. The language itself is rather independent of the runtime. Scala compiles to native code or Javascript as well.
- pbourke 6y ago
  Scala is nowhere near as approachable as Python or Typescript
  - valenterry 6y ago
    Why do you think that?
    - pbourke 6y ago
      Scala’s implicits, mutable/immutable collection bifurcation, infix/dot syntax interchangeability for method invocations, tendency of libraries to implement their own mini language, ...
      - valenterry 6y ago
        As a beginner, you don't really have to use Scala's implicits or "infix/dot syntax". Just like how you don't have to use type annotations, generators, decorators, context managers in python. Same for libraries. At some point you will stumble upon a library that forces you to understand them or you even write one yourself, but that is not something that stops you in the beginning.
        random5634 6y ago
        It does. Go got this right. If you want to read code, contribute to a large code base, folks will be using the features of the language, including the weird ones. Go has kept things very simple (relatively) in terms of core language. Some things were beyond basic (error handling? no generics?) But boy did it make it easier for contribute and understand code. def Hi() = "hi" Hi() Hi Yes, those two variants both work?
        valenterry 6y ago
        > If you want to read code, contribute to a large code base Sure, but in that case, is python really beginner friendly? I don't think so. I had the impression we were talking about starting out with the language and building the well-known todo-list to learn the basics. Also, golang is a rather young language and it will go the way that all languages go: it will get more and more complex because the more experienced developers want to improve their productivity with better language features. Remember the "no generics" thing? Well, now the generics will be added - I predicted this to happen. And just wait, other features will follow...
jshen 6y ago
Typescript is not clean because it has to accommodate every crazy thing people do in raw JavaScript. Having said that, isn’t Deno close to what you’re looking for?
- marmada 6y ago
  I actually really like TS's type system precisely because it is insanely flexible. I can write statically typed code that easily shapes & reshapes objects & code that fits functional or object oriented programming styles. It's a statically typed language that feels dynamic. Now, if I were to get a version of TS without all of JS's crutches that would be amazing. Deno is pretty close, but it lacks on performance & is bounded in potential by JS (in some aspects).
  - bambataa 6y ago
    I live in hope that, one day, TS will loosen its links to JS. Things like `Object.keys` irritate me because they don’t compose well. What would go wrong if TS started supporting `Object.prototype.keys`? Could even be implemented as a rewrite using `Object.keys`.
  - jshen 6y ago
    I’ve been thinking about this, and I never thought of it before. I would love a language that is both dynamic and static similar to JS and TS. but, when the types are provided, use them to compile to fast code, while keeping the ability to do dynamic scripting.
miles7 6y ago
What’s your opinion on Julia?
jamil7 6y ago
Swift would be a candidate and is a great, progressively disclosed language, simple enough for beginners but scales up in advanced features. It’s attachment to Apple puts a lot of developers off but there is a lot of work going into windows and linux support as well as WASM. One issue is compile times right now.
pjmlp 6y ago
> C -> Zig If dealing with uses after free and lack of bounds checked access in release code is still a fun factor. > Java -?-> Go Not at all, unless one misses Java 1.4 with loots of if/else boilerplate.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  - But huh, if you checked that at runtime compiling un debug mode, and then you compile you compile the exact same code... It should be OK right ? - I think you're right. C is more l'île a garbage collected C.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Big if, specially if you haven't tested all use cases. It is the same fallacy as C code is safe if everything was checked, while CVEs keep happening.
proto-n 6y ago
What do you think of Dart? It's still evolving, but for me it ticks all those boxes.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  I’m overwhelmingly favourable towards Dart. While I picked it up for mobile (Flutter) dev, I’ve been slowly replacing a lot of scripting/backend work with it too. It’s the ideal replacement for general purpose scripting and browser work IMO. I can’t recommend it enough.

BadInformatics 6y ago

I remember a few years back when Nim was going to be the next big thing here, but unfortunately it never gained that level of traction. Still an interesting language even without bigco levels of support behind it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

valenterry 6y ago

Scala comes very close to that.

ledauphin 6y ago
the JVM is an incredibly heavyweight runtime compared to CPython. I don't think we're going to find the next beginner-friendly language coming out of the most professional runtime in human history.
- pbourke 6y ago
  > incredibly heavyweight runtime The apps may be heavyweight, but the runtime was designed to run on set-top boxes 25 years ago.
  - jaytaylor 6y ago
    The JVM is definitely memory hungry (excluding cherry-picked examples such as 'set top deployments' or the Java Ring from the 90s), moreso than any other language runtime referenced in this discussion.
- valenterry 6y ago
  True, but I don't think that is what the OP was taking about. The language itself is rather independent of the runtime. Scala compiles to native code or Javascript as well.
pbourke 6y ago
Scala is nowhere near as approachable as Python or Typescript
- valenterry 6y ago
  Why do you think that?
  - pbourke 6y ago
    Scala’s implicits, mutable/immutable collection bifurcation, infix/dot syntax interchangeability for method invocations, tendency of libraries to implement their own mini language, ...
    - valenterry 6y ago
      As a beginner, you don't really have to use Scala's implicits or "infix/dot syntax". Just like how you don't have to use type annotations, generators, decorators, context managers in python. Same for libraries. At some point you will stumble upon a library that forces you to understand them or you even write one yourself, but that is not something that stops you in the beginning.
      - random5634 6y ago
        It does. Go got this right. If you want to read code, contribute to a large code base, folks will be using the features of the language, including the weird ones. Go has kept things very simple (relatively) in terms of core language. Some things were beyond basic (error handling? no generics?) But boy did it make it easier for contribute and understand code. def Hi() = "hi" Hi() Hi Yes, those two variants both work?
        valenterry 6y ago
        > If you want to read code, contribute to a large code base Sure, but in that case, is python really beginner friendly? I don't think so. I had the impression we were talking about starting out with the language and building the well-known todo-list to learn the basics. Also, golang is a rather young language and it will go the way that all languages go: it will get more and more complex because the more experienced developers want to improve their productivity with better language features. Remember the "no generics" thing? Well, now the generics will be added - I predicted this to happen. And just wait, other features will follow...

jshen 6y ago

Typescript is not clean because it has to accommodate every crazy thing people do in raw JavaScript. Having said that, isn’t Deno close to what you’re looking for?

marmada 6y ago
I actually really like TS's type system precisely because it is insanely flexible. I can write statically typed code that easily shapes & reshapes objects & code that fits functional or object oriented programming styles. It's a statically typed language that feels dynamic. Now, if I were to get a version of TS without all of JS's crutches that would be amazing. Deno is pretty close, but it lacks on performance & is bounded in potential by JS (in some aspects).
- bambataa 6y ago
  I live in hope that, one day, TS will loosen its links to JS. Things like `Object.keys` irritate me because they don’t compose well. What would go wrong if TS started supporting `Object.prototype.keys`? Could even be implemented as a rewrite using `Object.keys`.
- jshen 6y ago
  I’ve been thinking about this, and I never thought of it before. I would love a language that is both dynamic and static similar to JS and TS. but, when the types are provided, use them to compile to fast code, while keeping the ability to do dynamic scripting.

miles7 6y ago

What’s your opinion on Julia?

jamil7 6y ago

Swift would be a candidate and is a great, progressively disclosed language, simple enough for beginners but scales up in advanced features. It’s attachment to Apple puts a lot of developers off but there is a lot of work going into windows and linux support as well as WASM. One issue is compile times right now.

pjmlp 6y ago

> C -> Zig If dealing with uses after free and lack of bounds checked access in release code is still a fun factor. > Java -?-> Go Not at all, unless one misses Java 1.4 with loots of if/else boilerplate.

cassepipe 6y ago
- But huh, if you checked that at runtime compiling un debug mode, and then you compile you compile the exact same code... It should be OK right ? - I think you're right. C is more l'île a garbage collected C.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Big if, specially if you haven't tested all use cases. It is the same fallacy as C code is safe if everything was checked, while CVEs keep happening.

proto-n 6y ago

What do you think of Dart? It's still evolving, but for me it ticks all those boxes.

nmfisher 6y ago
I’m overwhelmingly favourable towards Dart. While I picked it up for mobile (Flutter) dev, I’ve been slowly replacing a lot of scripting/backend work with it too. It’s the ideal replacement for general purpose scripting and browser work IMO. I can’t recommend it enough.