3 ms·
This guy doesn't seem to know what he actually wants. He wants the language to be "extensible" by "library authors" (?) but then later on the argues that the la
by bruce343434 5y ago
This guy doesn't seem to know what he actually wants. He wants the language to be "extensible" by "library authors" (?) but then later on the argues that the language should be locked down, thus hard to misuse.
- trynumber9 5y agoPerhaps that's the point? So many features, one wonders if they are all compatible. >One or more of these requirements might be conflicting / mutually exclusive. Maybe. But maybe not?
- redbar0n 5y agoThanks for pointing out the inconsistency. What I meant was that the language core should be very constrained around composition of a few core primitives (self-hosting), but that it could be modified or built upon by others. So that it could evolve in multiple avenues of exploration, and gain from the competition. Where it would be up to the community to decide whether they want to use the constrained version(s) (suitable for large scale complex environments), which I prefer, or the bring-your-own syntax version(s) (suitable for small scale playful experimentation and research) which would inevitably appear. Inspirations here would be Lisp, Clojure and Racket. What would be important is to facilitate simple language _merging_, due to all the divergence that would appear. Inspired by Git. So the community could easily find back together after a split (if their ideas and goals come back in alignment, and they have converged to an agrement on the features again).