3 ms·

Elm.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Philpax 2y ago
It "succeeded" in that it delivers on its promise and some people still use it, but it is largely dead now due to the lack of development and the community's inability to push the language itself forward. There are forks that address that, but Elm itself seems unlikely to Lazarus any time soon. It's definitely proof that software can be written in such a regime, though, and I hope we see something similarly dogmatic some day.
- tmountain 2y ago
  Gleam has potential to fill the niche and has an active and growing community.
  - Philpax 2y ago
    Gleam / Lustre are fantastic, and I hope to use them in anger at some point, but it's my understanding that they don't aim to be as "total" as Elm (quotation marks because I don't think Elm was total in the formal sense). That is, while Lustre is very much following in Elm's footsteps, both it and the language have not been designed around avoiding runtime failure at all costs. (Which makes sense, given the Erlang/BEAM heritage.)
9rx 2y ago
Failed language. And for that reason few know it exists.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  It depends on what you consider failure. If you feel popularity is the main metric then golang is successful. Outside of that metric golang is pretty bad. The proof is in the pudding. Here’s a quote from rob pike the creator of golang: “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.” Basically in a nutshell he’s saying they dumbed down golang so it’s useable by beginners. Golang is a step backwards. A failure in language development but a success in popularity. You dumb down a language to a point where the language is so dumbed down it hits the largest demographic. You are part of that demographic. It’s similar to the demographic that voted for trump because he’s not fakeish like all the other candidates.
  - grepexdev 2y ago
    I understand what you are saying here but I think you've missed the point of what Pike was getting at. I think Pike is acknowledging the practical realities of engineering at scale, and intentionally designed Go with simplicity in mind, which leads to more maintainable code and faster onboarding for new devs. I'll also add that outside of the popularity metric, Go is not all bad. Fast compile times, readability, excellent standard library and toolchain, backward compatibility, to name a few things.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      >I think Pike is acknowledging the practical realities of engineering at scale, and intentionally designed Go with simplicity in mind, which leads to more maintainable code and faster onboarding for new devs. Doubt it. Read what he wrote. He's literally referring to people without much experience in programming. The stuff you said is literally NOT what he said. >I'll also add that outside of the popularity metric, Go is not all bad. Fast compile times, readability, excellent standard library and toolchain, backward compatibility, to name a few things. I agree with readability and fast compile times.
      - grepexdev 2y ago
        Pike didn't write it, he said it. (1) It is a talk about how Go was created to make concurrency simple. The "brilliant" language he refers to here is C++, which I'm sure you're aware has many of its own downsides. Your argument that Go is a step backward because it was intentionally designed to be simple for novice programmers seems flawed. It's design was a deliberate tradeoff to address a specific problem. While I don't think it is a language that should be used for everything, it is good at the things it is good at. What is it about Go that you have a problem with, specifically? 1. Around the 20 minute mark: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/lang-next-2014/from-parallel-to-concurrent https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/lang-next-2014/from-...
        ninetyninenine 1y ago

Elm.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

It "succeeded" in that it delivers on its promise and some people still use it, but it is largely dead now due to the lack of development and the community's inability to push the language itself forward. There are forks that address that, but Elm itself seems unlikely to Lazarus any time soon. It's definitely proof that software can be written in such a regime, though, and I hope we see something similarly dogmatic some day.

tmountain 2y ago
Gleam has potential to fill the niche and has an active and growing community.
- Philpax 2y ago
  Gleam / Lustre are fantastic, and I hope to use them in anger at some point, but it's my understanding that they don't aim to be as "total" as Elm (quotation marks because I don't think Elm was total in the formal sense). That is, while Lustre is very much following in Elm's footsteps, both it and the language have not been designed around avoiding runtime failure at all costs. (Which makes sense, given the Erlang/BEAM heritage.)

9rx 2y ago

Failed language. And for that reason few know it exists.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
It depends on what you consider failure. If you feel popularity is the main metric then golang is successful. Outside of that metric golang is pretty bad. The proof is in the pudding. Here’s a quote from rob pike the creator of golang: “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.” Basically in a nutshell he’s saying they dumbed down golang so it’s useable by beginners. Golang is a step backwards. A failure in language development but a success in popularity. You dumb down a language to a point where the language is so dumbed down it hits the largest demographic. You are part of that demographic. It’s similar to the demographic that voted for trump because he’s not fakeish like all the other candidates.
- grepexdev 2y ago
  I understand what you are saying here but I think you've missed the point of what Pike was getting at. I think Pike is acknowledging the practical realities of engineering at scale, and intentionally designed Go with simplicity in mind, which leads to more maintainable code and faster onboarding for new devs. I'll also add that outside of the popularity metric, Go is not all bad. Fast compile times, readability, excellent standard library and toolchain, backward compatibility, to name a few things.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    >I think Pike is acknowledging the practical realities of engineering at scale, and intentionally designed Go with simplicity in mind, which leads to more maintainable code and faster onboarding for new devs. Doubt it. Read what he wrote. He's literally referring to people without much experience in programming. The stuff you said is literally NOT what he said. >I'll also add that outside of the popularity metric, Go is not all bad. Fast compile times, readability, excellent standard library and toolchain, backward compatibility, to name a few things. I agree with readability and fast compile times.
    - grepexdev 2y ago
      Pike didn't write it, he said it. (1) It is a talk about how Go was created to make concurrency simple. The "brilliant" language he refers to here is C++, which I'm sure you're aware has many of its own downsides. Your argument that Go is a step backward because it was intentionally designed to be simple for novice programmers seems flawed. It's design was a deliberate tradeoff to address a specific problem. While I don't think it is a language that should be used for everything, it is good at the things it is good at. What is it about Go that you have a problem with, specifically? 1. Around the 20 minute mark: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/lang-next-2014/from-parallel-to-concurrent https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/lang-next-2014/from-...
      - ninetyninenine 1y ago