4 ms·

I like the clear choices you made and that you stuck to them, even when making them optional (particularly shooting for GC-optional) might have attracted attent

I like the clear choices you made and that you stuck to them, even when making them optional (particularly shooting for GC-optional) might have attracted attention. Also, like the explicit implementation simplicity as a goal. I’ve talked about it on Hn a few times, but I wrote the language I use for work. Like you, the language is primarily for me, but my motivation was to prove some type theory and philosophical (mathematics) points I held as true but couldn’t visibly see for myself. It was a trek to get finished, but it was a very rewarding experience.

news_to_me 3y ago
Thanks! A big part of the project was discovering all of those philosophical sort of trade offs. Going in, I had a naive idea that I could figure out the “perfect language” for me that expressed exactly how I thought. I have a ton more respect for language maintainers now, even when they make decisions I disagree with.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Every now and then the "programming as theory building" article shows up on HN. Language design is even closer to theory building, as it's awfully easy for two superficially unrelated features to interact in an inconsistent way. (see also Joel Moses on "beautiful crystal structure" vs "ball of mud")