4 ms·

A few observations: Seems very ML/Haskell inspired. All tuples seem to require parenthesis. Definitely not ergonomic on a qwertz layout (Altough, what langua

A few observations: Seems very ML/Haskell inspired. All tuples seem to require parenthesis. Definitely not ergonomic on a qwertz layout (Altough, what language is?) No current plans for an interactive/repl version it seems No dependant types either. Overall, pretty interesting. Definitely warrants a closer look.

zesterer 4y ago
Pretty much! The language does support limited sugar for tuples without parentheses in some specific cases, such as `match` and `let`: let x, y = 5, 4 in ... match x, y in | 4, 7 => None \ _, y => Just y However, these cases only incidentally lower to tuple pattern matching, and deliberately hide the fact that tuples are used internally.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  Are you planning on having something similar to computation expressions? Altough, I guess thats basically covered within the do notation. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/computation-expressions https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-refe...
  - zesterer 4y ago
    Yes! As you say, the do notation + monads covers this, but I'm planning to remove it in favour of a slightly more general 'effect basin' syntax that I'm currently working on (syntactically similar to Rust's async + await, but generalised to all effectful operations like mutation, IO, etc.). Example here: https://github.com/zesterer/tao/blob/master/examples/mutate.tao#L24-L29 https://github.com/zesterer/tao/blob/master/examples/mutate....
platz 4y ago
> No dependant types either. You're funny
- Akronymus 4y ago
  How so? I personally find dependant types to be very interesting, but I get that they are a PITA to implement. So, for me, it was simply an observation that there are currently no plans for dependant types. No value judgement intended.
  - isaacimagine 4y ago
    Not to be pendantic, but I think you made a joke without realizing it.
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      I did? I have now spent like 20 minutes trying to figure it out. But I still don't get it.
      - macintux 4y ago
        I'm guessing it has something to do with the keyword "either" and Haskell types, but I'm otherwise clueless. Every time I look at Haskell I run the other way.
        zesterer 4y ago
        I think it was "value judgement" (dependent types allow dispatching over a value in the type system)

zesterer 4y ago

Pretty much! The language does support limited sugar for tuples without parentheses in some specific cases, such as `match` and `let`: let x, y = 5, 4 in ... match x, y in | 4, 7 => None \ _, y => Just y However, these cases only incidentally lower to tuple pattern matching, and deliberately hide the fact that tuples are used internally.

Akronymus 4y ago
Are you planning on having something similar to computation expressions? Altough, I guess thats basically covered within the do notation. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/computation-expressions https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-refe...
- zesterer 4y ago
  Yes! As you say, the do notation + monads covers this, but I'm planning to remove it in favour of a slightly more general 'effect basin' syntax that I'm currently working on (syntactically similar to Rust's async + await, but generalised to all effectful operations like mutation, IO, etc.). Example here: https://github.com/zesterer/tao/blob/master/examples/mutate.tao#L24-L29 https://github.com/zesterer/tao/blob/master/examples/mutate....

platz 4y ago

> No dependant types either. You're funny

Akronymus 4y ago
How so? I personally find dependant types to be very interesting, but I get that they are a PITA to implement. So, for me, it was simply an observation that there are currently no plans for dependant types. No value judgement intended.
- isaacimagine 4y ago
  Not to be pendantic, but I think you made a joke without realizing it.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    I did? I have now spent like 20 minutes trying to figure it out. But I still don't get it.
    - macintux 4y ago
      I'm guessing it has something to do with the keyword "either" and Haskell types, but I'm otherwise clueless. Every time I look at Haskell I run the other way.
      - zesterer 4y ago
        I think it was "value judgement" (dependent types allow dispatching over a value in the type system)