3 ms·

There is a good excuse: Not having multi-{m,b,t}illion-dollar corporate entities working on the language full-time is a good reason for something to not exist.

There is a good excuse: Not having multi-{m,b,t}illion-dollar corporate entities working on the language full-time is a good reason for something to not exist. Not having a corporation back the development of a language has tons of downstream effects, including: - lack of support opportunities - lack of employment opportunities - lack of evolution and development of an ecosystem - higher churn and/or attrition - fewer opportunity to do long-term design and implementation projects Yes, sometimes there are FOSS miracle workers who are so extraordinarily productive without being paid, but they're few and far between. (Aside from that, not all users need such functionality.)

Zambyte 4y ago
tillion :D
pdimitar 4y ago
Honestly, there are way too many programming languages already. Even though a chunk of them are interesting as thought experiments and potential future investments (like that one that content-addresses its own AST; forgot the name), I believe it's high time we all focus on more practical aspects. Parallelism is one of those. Only microcontrollers are single-core these days, and not even all of them. I sympathize with the people who have fallen in love with their own idea and are sad that others "don't see the light" and don't support them -- but our world is an imperfect system and that's a fact of life. F.ex. I'd kill for a LISP with strong(er) static typing plus Erlang's transparent parallelism and runtime but yeah, we don't have that. So Elixir and Rust it is for me.
- medo-bear 4y ago
  > I'd kill for a LISP with strong(er) static typing interestingly, the person you are replying to is an author of this little lib https://coalton-lang.github.io/ https://coalton-lang.github.io/
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    Heh, quite nice. I wish LISP in general standardized something like this.
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      its not necessary to standardize it. there are enough primitives in the standard. instead the language can be extended through libraries such as this

Zambyte 4y ago

tillion :D

pdimitar 4y ago

Honestly, there are way too many programming languages already. Even though a chunk of them are interesting as thought experiments and potential future investments (like that one that content-addresses its own AST; forgot the name), I believe it's high time we all focus on more practical aspects. Parallelism is one of those. Only microcontrollers are single-core these days, and not even all of them. I sympathize with the people who have fallen in love with their own idea and are sad that others "don't see the light" and don't support them -- but our world is an imperfect system and that's a fact of life. F.ex. I'd kill for a LISP with strong(er) static typing plus Erlang's transparent parallelism and runtime but yeah, we don't have that. So Elixir and Rust it is for me.

medo-bear 4y ago
> I'd kill for a LISP with strong(er) static typing interestingly, the person you are replying to is an author of this little lib https://coalton-lang.github.io/ https://coalton-lang.github.io/
- pdimitar 4y ago
  Heh, quite nice. I wish LISP in general standardized something like this.
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    its not necessary to standardize it. there are enough primitives in the standard. instead the language can be extended through libraries such as this