4 ms·

Week after week I see posts on HN about a new language and why it suits the niche it targets. Wouldn't it easier to take a high language lexer like c# and morp

Week after week I see posts on HN about a new language and why it suits the niche it targets. Wouldn't it easier to take a high language lexer like c# and morph it's outcome to the niche iinstead learning a new language that isn't maintained after 5 years? c# was already used for python, maui.net cross compiles to android, ios, windows, linux, web, ... What's your take on this?

qznc 4y ago
It is a tradeoff. You can buy into the C# ecosystem and get a lot of benefits (like reusing all the libraries already written in other languages). However, if you build software for real-time embedded microcontrollers, like Blech does, that these advantages are not worth it.
kroltan 4y ago
Regarding maintenance, syntax is pretty low on my list of "reasons to worry about a language's future". What almost always is at the top is "can I genuinely use this?" which often means being able to interoperate with other languages and reuse existing libraries, and of course, that the language does what it says it does. In fact, I could only expect more confusion from reusing an existing syntax, no matter how nice it is, if the semantics won't be the exact same. In this case specifically, C# and all its libraries are very much oriented about not managing memory manually, so a lot of language features would either be morphed into something with idiosyncratic semantics, or would not be possible to be used. Maui most likely could not be hacked to work compliantly in a strict realtime environment anyway, for example. So there's no advantage for it to be available.
swatcoder 4y ago
1. Learning new languages isn't hard once you've done it a few times. The people most interested in stuff like this don't see that as a meaningful cost, and many even enjoy it. 2. For certain classes of projects the future of the underlying tools aren't relevant. You may be surprised how many projects either don't have a long projected lifetime, or are expected to have a long deployed life with little to no updates or rebuilds. 3. The only way a language can become mature and lasting is for it to survive those first "5 years" (as you put it). Somebody has to be out on the front lines, putting it through its paces, and contributing to the community that makes it last. 4. These new languages often act as unofficial testing grounds for ideas that later fold back into more established languages. We're in an age of extensive research and innovation in practical languages and tools. It's kind of exhausting sometimes, when you try to keep up on it all (or have a team that tries too), but it's an incredible boon to the industry as a whole.

qznc 4y ago

It is a tradeoff. You can buy into the C# ecosystem and get a lot of benefits (like reusing all the libraries already written in other languages). However, if you build software for real-time embedded microcontrollers, like Blech does, that these advantages are not worth it.

kroltan 4y ago

Regarding maintenance, syntax is pretty low on my list of "reasons to worry about a language's future". What almost always is at the top is "can I genuinely use this?" which often means being able to interoperate with other languages and reuse existing libraries, and of course, that the language does what it says it does. In fact, I could only expect more confusion from reusing an existing syntax, no matter how nice it is, if the semantics won't be the exact same. In this case specifically, C# and all its libraries are very much oriented about not managing memory manually, so a lot of language features would either be morphed into something with idiosyncratic semantics, or would not be possible to be used. Maui most likely could not be hacked to work compliantly in a strict realtime environment anyway, for example. So there's no advantage for it to be available.

swatcoder 4y ago

1. Learning new languages isn't hard once you've done it a few times. The people most interested in stuff like this don't see that as a meaningful cost, and many even enjoy it. 2. For certain classes of projects the future of the underlying tools aren't relevant. You may be surprised how many projects either don't have a long projected lifetime, or are expected to have a long deployed life with little to no updates or rebuilds. 3. The only way a language can become mature and lasting is for it to survive those first "5 years" (as you put it). Somebody has to be out on the front lines, putting it through its paces, and contributing to the community that makes it last. 4. These new languages often act as unofficial testing grounds for ideas that later fold back into more established languages. We're in an age of extensive research and innovation in practical languages and tools. It's kind of exhausting sometimes, when you try to keep up on it all (or have a team that tries too), but it's an incredible boon to the industry as a whole.