4 ms·

edit: these comments are general, not directed at Val. A humble suggestion to anyone coming up with a new language. Please make it as familiar as possible. F

edit: these comments are general, not directed at Val. A humble suggestion to anyone coming up with a new language. Please make it as familiar as possible. For example, do you really need to come up with some new syntax for defining a function, or specifying types and returns? If you want people to use your new language, reduce the cognitive load - do things the same as other languages and be different only where you must. Every time you come up with some completely alien programming construct, you have set a barrier to learning. Coming up with a new language should, for the most part, be an exercise in copying the best of how other extremely popular languages do things, and on top of that build in the necessary differences that make your language special. Also, less is more. For example, one of the reasons Rust is so complex and intimidating is it has six sublanguages https://gist.github.com/brendanzab/d41c3ae485d66c07178749eaeeb9e5f7 https://gist.github.com/brendanzab/d41c3ae485d66c07178749eae... the expression language unsafe runtime language safe runtime language compile time language the type language the trait language the macro language the attribute language Whereas Zig goes the other direction and attempts to make everything programmable in the one core language, even ditching macros entirely. https://ziglang.org/learn/overview/ https://ziglang.org/learn/overview/. In Zig you can write compile time code in the same language and same code base. I put forward these suggestions not as a language edxpert - I am far from it - instead I put them forward as a frustrated learner wanting to do new things and looking at new languages and thinking "shit, I already work with three of four languages plus any number of subtechnologies on a given system, I just don't have time/headspace to learn a programming language with six sub languages".

cobbal 3y ago
This syntax looks almost exactly like Swift, which is also where it borrows its semantics from.
- turnsout 3y ago
  Yeah, it feels like Swift with lifetimes (which are coming to Swift). Other than the abstract benefits of mutable value semantics for generics, I wonder what would make one reach for Val over Swift (or going the other way, Rust)
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Adobe likes Swift, but doesn't think it will ever strive outside Apple's ecosystem, as it was it Objective-C as well. Additionally Dave Abrahms would like to have another go at designing Swift.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Wait a second, isn’t Mojo supposed to be the Swift but better language- there’s another one already? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36281245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36281245
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Surprise it turns out various Swift designers have different points of view.
pkkm 3y ago
I disagree. Syntax is the thing everyone loves to comment on because of the bikeshed effect, but it's probably the quickest aspect of a new language to learn. If you're already creating a new language and have the opportunity to fix some things that make older languages harder to remember, parse, or type, why not take it?
JonChesterfield 3y ago
Alternatively, where the semantics are different to existing languages, try to make the syntax different too. Languages which look the same as existing ones and behave differently are pretty rough going for newcomers and anyone programming in multiple languages.
- andrewstuart 3y ago
  I probably should have said "did you really need the syntax and the behavior to be different?" My point is not so much about syntax, it is about unnecessarily doing things in a conceptually different way. If different behavior at a given point is core to what makes your language special then sure thing, make it behave different, but implementing some different behavior without a significant payoff only makes your new language harder to grasp. Presumably you are making a language because you have some core concepts or beliefs you want to bring to life - all I'm saying is - make that happen, and make the rest as familiar as possible for most programmers.
- macintux 3y ago
  One reason I prefer Erlang to Elixir is that I appreciate the fact that Erlang syntax is very different, and I feel like it helps me think in Erlang. I don’t think about Python or Ruby.
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
I never get this argument. The syntax is important for consistency, but in another sense is trivial. It's the smallest thing about a new language that you have to learn, I don't understand why people get hung up on it.
- stusmall 3y ago
  I often find people get very hung up on it because they don't have much else to talk about. The look and feel of the syntax is the least important part of a language but its also the easiest to complain about.
corysama 3y ago
Reminds me of Bjarne Stroustrup talking about how every time they add a new feature to the language, it's unfamiliar to anyone so everyone wants it to be REALLY LOUD AND OBVIOUS. "Stand back! I'm going to use a LAMBDA here!" But, after a short time, the new features are so common and familiar that everyone starts complaining about how loud they are. "Why is the syntax for lambdas so noisy! [](){}! Gah! Can we at least make the () optional to quiet it down a bit??"
adamwk 3y ago
What's unfamiliar about Val? It looks very similar to most languages released in the past 10 years with minor changes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jgilias 3y ago
They do have a good reason to do what they do though. They explicitly say that they’re going for a language where you can pretend there are no references and things are just mutable values. And you can’t really do this without coming up with new names. Because of course there are references under the hood. If Rust goes the explicit modifier route, e.g. something can be & and also mut, and you need to know what these are, Val goes the implied behavior route where a ‘set’ parameter can be set, while a ‘let’ parameter can’t. If they didn’t come up with new semantics, they’d just be making a Rust clone. I for one am very looking forward to how Val develops. Currently it seems like it can offer similar guarantees to Rust while using a simpler mental model to deal with. I’m curious to see how they are going to tackle concurrency. Their roadmap outlines that as one of the trickier parts given the semantics that they’re going for.
kjs3 3y ago
Clearly, this is why Rust has been unsuccessful. /s But seriously, if you aren't doing something really different, why bother. If you find Popular Language X (PLX) too limiting, there's probably a dozen or two "it's just like PLX, but with a sprinkling of things from Y, which is pretty much like PLX, but sweeter sugar, and that makes it perfect". As others have pointed out, syntax is trivia[1]. [1] Unless, of course, you think a BEGIN..END language is nifty, and then you're a heretic and someone is coming with torches and pitchforks. :-)
- kjs3 3y ago
  P.S. - I'm not talking about PL/X, which is a thing, because of course it is. PL/I with some PL.8 and PL/S, and probably some PL/M. Nope...not joking.
chlorion 3y ago
I disagree with this a lot. I think most programmers have been trained to think that C like syntax and semantics is fundamental to programming languages, as if languages are just inherently C like, and that C is just what programming is, but this is not true. Programming language theory is an entire field of study on it's own, and there are a lot more possibilities than just rehashing C for the nth time.

cobbal 3y ago

This syntax looks almost exactly like Swift, which is also where it borrows its semantics from.

turnsout 3y ago
Yeah, it feels like Swift with lifetimes (which are coming to Swift). Other than the abstract benefits of mutable value semantics for generics, I wonder what would make one reach for Val over Swift (or going the other way, Rust)
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Adobe likes Swift, but doesn't think it will ever strive outside Apple's ecosystem, as it was it Objective-C as well. Additionally Dave Abrahms would like to have another go at designing Swift.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Wait a second, isn’t Mojo supposed to be the Swift but better language- there’s another one already? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36281245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36281245
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Surprise it turns out various Swift designers have different points of view.

pkkm 3y ago

I disagree. Syntax is the thing everyone loves to comment on because of the bikeshed effect, but it's probably the quickest aspect of a new language to learn. If you're already creating a new language and have the opportunity to fix some things that make older languages harder to remember, parse, or type, why not take it?

JonChesterfield 3y ago

Alternatively, where the semantics are different to existing languages, try to make the syntax different too. Languages which look the same as existing ones and behave differently are pretty rough going for newcomers and anyone programming in multiple languages.

andrewstuart 3y ago
I probably should have said "did you really need the syntax and the behavior to be different?" My point is not so much about syntax, it is about unnecessarily doing things in a conceptually different way. If different behavior at a given point is core to what makes your language special then sure thing, make it behave different, but implementing some different behavior without a significant payoff only makes your new language harder to grasp. Presumably you are making a language because you have some core concepts or beliefs you want to bring to life - all I'm saying is - make that happen, and make the rest as familiar as possible for most programmers.
macintux 3y ago
One reason I prefer Erlang to Elixir is that I appreciate the fact that Erlang syntax is very different, and I feel like it helps me think in Erlang. I don’t think about Python or Ruby.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

I never get this argument. The syntax is important for consistency, but in another sense is trivial. It's the smallest thing about a new language that you have to learn, I don't understand why people get hung up on it.

stusmall 3y ago
I often find people get very hung up on it because they don't have much else to talk about. The look and feel of the syntax is the least important part of a language but its also the easiest to complain about.

corysama 3y ago

Reminds me of Bjarne Stroustrup talking about how every time they add a new feature to the language, it's unfamiliar to anyone so everyone wants it to be REALLY LOUD AND OBVIOUS. "Stand back! I'm going to use a LAMBDA here!" But, after a short time, the new features are so common and familiar that everyone starts complaining about how loud they are. "Why is the syntax for lambdas so noisy! [](){}! Gah! Can we at least make the () optional to quiet it down a bit??"

adamwk 3y ago

What's unfamiliar about Val? It looks very similar to most languages released in the past 10 years with minor changes.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jgilias 3y ago

They do have a good reason to do what they do though. They explicitly say that they’re going for a language where you can pretend there are no references and things are just mutable values. And you can’t really do this without coming up with new names. Because of course there are references under the hood. If Rust goes the explicit modifier route, e.g. something can be & and also mut, and you need to know what these are, Val goes the implied behavior route where a ‘set’ parameter can be set, while a ‘let’ parameter can’t. If they didn’t come up with new semantics, they’d just be making a Rust clone. I for one am very looking forward to how Val develops. Currently it seems like it can offer similar guarantees to Rust while using a simpler mental model to deal with. I’m curious to see how they are going to tackle concurrency. Their roadmap outlines that as one of the trickier parts given the semantics that they’re going for.

kjs3 3y ago

Clearly, this is why Rust has been unsuccessful. /s But seriously, if you aren't doing something really different, why bother. If you find Popular Language X (PLX) too limiting, there's probably a dozen or two "it's just like PLX, but with a sprinkling of things from Y, which is pretty much like PLX, but sweeter sugar, and that makes it perfect". As others have pointed out, syntax is trivia[1]. [1] Unless, of course, you think a BEGIN..END language is nifty, and then you're a heretic and someone is coming with torches and pitchforks. :-)

kjs3 3y ago
P.S. - I'm not talking about PL/X, which is a thing, because of course it is. PL/I with some PL.8 and PL/S, and probably some PL/M. Nope...not joking.

chlorion 3y ago

I disagree with this a lot. I think most programmers have been trained to think that C like syntax and semantics is fundamental to programming languages, as if languages are just inherently C like, and that C is just what programming is, but this is not true. Programming language theory is an entire field of study on it's own, and there are a lot more possibilities than just rehashing C for the nth time.