3 ms·

I'm interested to read more about this if you have any links or want to sketch out a design

mncharity 4y ago
A couple of years before covid, Boston Haskell meetup group was active and wizzy. And bar discussion would repeated turn to what a "Haskell-NEXT" might look like. Aside from similar bars at conferences, I've not encountered such discussion elsewhere. Having such discussion work has seemed very sensitive to including extreme outlier quality people. Which very isn't me - I mostly just ask questions. They go home, and even though people left have wizzy math backgrounds and are doing their own language implementations... continuing can be hard. And the costs of such discussion in text, or in zoom... I can't picture that. So... I'm unclear on how progress might be fruitfully nudged. The bottleneck seems waiting for research papers to drop, and existing language efforts to incrementally improve, slowly creeping closer to "oh yeah, we could do that soon". With a big caveat of its been years since I even slightly tried to track the big picture, here are two thoughts on directions which I then felt were getting less attention that I might have liked. First, having wizzy type system power, while not much caring about static typing. I thought of it as sort of a optional-typing CommonLisp attitude. Expressive power, but fine-gain collaborative-compilation tradeoff control over where to pay for what assistance. And second, extremely extensible languages, as can do bulk subsumption of others. So imported modules providing compiler cross-sections, from syntax to type analysis to optimization tweaks. ... Ah well, if humans don't get to it, maybe ML Copilot2030 will give "sure, just express what you want it any mixed mashup of different languages and math, and I'll try guessing what you're trying to say ;) So... I'm unclear on a fruitful way to proceed...? Sorry... I appreciate the thought.

A couple of years before covid, Boston Haskell meetup group was active and wizzy. And bar discussion would repeated turn to what a "Haskell-NEXT" might look like. Aside from similar bars at conferences, I've not encountered such discussion elsewhere. Having such discussion work has seemed very sensitive to including extreme outlier quality people. Which very isn't me - I mostly just ask questions. They go home, and even though people left have wizzy math backgrounds and are doing their own language implementations... continuing can be hard. And the costs of such discussion in text, or in zoom... I can't picture that. So... I'm unclear on how progress might be fruitfully nudged. The bottleneck seems waiting for research papers to drop, and existing language efforts to incrementally improve, slowly creeping closer to "oh yeah, we could do that soon". With a big caveat of its been years since I even slightly tried to track the big picture, here are two thoughts on directions which I then felt were getting less attention that I might have liked. First, having wizzy type system power, while not much caring about static typing. I thought of it as sort of a optional-typing CommonLisp attitude. Expressive power, but fine-gain collaborative-compilation tradeoff control over where to pay for what assistance. And second, extremely extensible languages, as can do bulk subsumption of others. So imported modules providing compiler cross-sections, from syntax to type analysis to optimization tweaks. ... Ah well, if humans don't get to it, maybe ML Copilot2030 will give "sure, just express what you want it any mixed mashup of different languages and math, and I'll try guessing what you're trying to say ;) So... I'm unclear on a fruitful way to proceed...? Sorry... I appreciate the thought.