4 ms·

It looks like Rune still has a bitwise XOR operator: @ https://github.com/google/rune/blob/main/bootstrap/database/expr.rn https://github.com/google/rune/blob/

by troymc 4y ago

It looks like Rune still has a bitwise XOR operator: @ https://github.com/google/rune/blob/main/bootstrap/database/expr.rn https://github.com/google/rune/blob/main/bootstrap/database/... That innovation does seem like a potential footgun.

kibwen 4y ago
Here's my hot take: if you're designing a new programming language in the modern era, even a systems language, ignore the precedent of C and don't use &|^~ as bitwise operators. You can still have infix bitwise operators, but spell them out as bitand/bitor/bitxor/bitnot. Then you can just use &| for logical and/or, which are 1000x more common than bitwise and/or, and you can reclaim ^ for exponentiation as well. And don't forget to fix C's broken bitwise operator precedence while you're at it.
- lvass 4y ago
  Hard disagree on single characters for logic and exponentiation. ASCII has too few special characters and you'd want to use those elsewhere, without creating ambiguity. Elixir got it right.
  - PointyFluff 4y ago
    ASCII has tones of unused chars we could grab for coding.
    - junon 4y ago
      Mm yes but BEL is not a character that can be typed on a keyboard with any amount of ease.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > ASCII has too few special characters Unicode, OTOH, doesn’t have this problem.
    - josephg 4y ago
      True, but we don’t have Unicode keyboards.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  Interesting. I'd go the other way. Continue using single-character bitwise operators, but spell out "and" and "or" for the logical operators. Rationale: in normal usage, short-circuiting logical operators are, in effect, a special kind of control flow statement, and control flow statements are typically spelled out. Bitwise operators are more unequivocally meant for calculation, and therefore perhaps more deserving of similar syntax to the arithmetic operators, despite their less frequent usage. I think that this way of drawing the distinction might be particularly relevant in a language that disallows conditional branching - and, by extension, short-circuiting logical operations - on certain kinds of data the way Rune does.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    This is exactly what Python did and it works out very well for the most part.
  - benibela 4y ago
    Or the Pascal way. "And"/"or" for logical operators on bools. "And"/"Or" for bitwise operators on integers With a strong type system, it knows if the input is bool or integer
- npn 4y ago
  Some language use three characters for bitwise operators, like `>>>`, `!!!`, `&&&`. I think it is a good compromise.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
Sheer insanity. Sensible languages use ** for exponentiation and ^ for xor.

by troymc 4y ago

kibwen 4y ago

Here's my hot take: if you're designing a new programming language in the modern era, even a systems language, ignore the precedent of C and don't use &|^~ as bitwise operators. You can still have infix bitwise operators, but spell them out as bitand/bitor/bitxor/bitnot. Then you can just use &| for logical and/or, which are 1000x more common than bitwise and/or, and you can reclaim ^ for exponentiation as well. And don't forget to fix C's broken bitwise operator precedence while you're at it.

lvass 4y ago
Hard disagree on single characters for logic and exponentiation. ASCII has too few special characters and you'd want to use those elsewhere, without creating ambiguity. Elixir got it right.
- PointyFluff 4y ago
  ASCII has tones of unused chars we could grab for coding.
  - junon 4y ago
    Mm yes but BEL is not a character that can be typed on a keyboard with any amount of ease.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > ASCII has too few special characters Unicode, OTOH, doesn’t have this problem.
  - josephg 4y ago
    True, but we don’t have Unicode keyboards.
mumblemumble 4y ago
Interesting. I'd go the other way. Continue using single-character bitwise operators, but spell out "and" and "or" for the logical operators. Rationale: in normal usage, short-circuiting logical operators are, in effect, a special kind of control flow statement, and control flow statements are typically spelled out. Bitwise operators are more unequivocally meant for calculation, and therefore perhaps more deserving of similar syntax to the arithmetic operators, despite their less frequent usage. I think that this way of drawing the distinction might be particularly relevant in a language that disallows conditional branching - and, by extension, short-circuiting logical operations - on certain kinds of data the way Rune does.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  This is exactly what Python did and it works out very well for the most part.
- benibela 4y ago
  Or the Pascal way. "And"/"or" for logical operators on bools. "And"/"Or" for bitwise operators on integers With a strong type system, it knows if the input is bool or integer
npn 4y ago
Some language use three characters for bitwise operators, like `>>>`, `!!!`, `&&&`. I think it is a good compromise.

sacnoradhq 4y ago

Sheer insanity. Sensible languages use ** for exponentiation and ^ for xor.