3 ms·

Well, I feel that lot of code is written again and again, just in different languages. If we could automatically compare and translate different implementations

by js8 1y ago

Well, I feel that lot of code is written again and again, just in different languages. If we could automatically compare and translate different implementations, I think it would be beneficial for finding bugs. Everytime somebody comes up with a new programming language, I am like, yeah, so you added these abstraction, just in a different syntax. I think people who come up with new languages should implement the primitives on top of lambda calculus (which really is the simplest logical system we know), then we could potentially have automated translators between languages, and that way we could cater to everyone's preferences, and expand a standard library across different languages. So in short, yes, I think proliferation of programming languages without formal understanding of their differences is detrimental to interoperability of our computer systems. It would also allow wider notion of metaprogramming - automated manipulation of programs. For example, let's say I need to upgrade my source code from one interpreter version to another. If both interpreters are represented as a set of terms in lambda calculus, I can see how express one in the other, and formalize it as some kind of transformation. No more manual updates when something changes. It would also allow to build a library of universal optimizations, etc. So I think programmers would benefit from having a single universal language.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> Everytime somebody comes up with a new programming language, I am like, yeah, so you added these abstraction, just in a different syntax. I got this feeling too, until I started to explore languages outside of the C/Algol-like syntaxes. There is a wide range of languages out there, from array languages to lisps, and they don't give me the feeling of "just a different syntax" but actually changed the way I think. So yeah, I love lisp now and spend most of my days writing it, but it also comes with the downside that now Java, C# and Golang look more similar than different to each other. > It would also allow to build a library of universal optimizations, etc. So I think programmers would benefit from having a single universal language. I think assuming everyone would use the same hardware, same environment and same workflows to solve the same problems, this would make a lot of sense and would be hugely beneficial! But in reality lots of problems need different solutions, which has to be made in different ways, by different people who think differently. So because the world is plural, we need many programming languages too. Overall I feel like that's a benefit.
- TimTheTinker 1y ago
  > they don't give me the feeling of "just a different syntax" but actually changed the way I think. Not only that, but languages that enable more concise expression of an idea (without losing clarity for readers) reduces the error rates of programs written in them. It's been proven that when not accounting for constraints imposed by a compiler/interpreter (like the Rust borrow checker), the average error rate per unit size of programs across widely varying languages is constant. So reducing the number of lines/expressions required to express ideas reduces the number of errors by the same factor. Brevity pays when readability isn't sacrificed.
- js8 1y ago
  > assuming everyone would use the same hardware, same environment and same workflows They don't have to. I would ideally represent HW, OS and compiler in the LC as well. Then primitives of the language that could be proven to be HW/OS/compiler independent could be abstracted and readily translated. For the ones that could not - well you have exact description of what the differences are.
ElevenLathe 1y ago
Racket is at least related to the kind of metalanguage system you're talking about. I've never actually done it, but to implement a new "#lang" in Racket, your job is essentially to write a "reader" for it that transliterates it to the classic Schemey Racket language. Libraries written in one #lang can then be called from one another (or not, if that's what you want -- a lot of the point of this in Racket is building little restricted teaching languages that have limited capabilities).
- js8 1y ago
  But why stop at Racket? Why not reduce the needed primitives even further down to LC?

by js8 1y ago

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

> Everytime somebody comes up with a new programming language, I am like, yeah, so you added these abstraction, just in a different syntax. I got this feeling too, until I started to explore languages outside of the C/Algol-like syntaxes. There is a wide range of languages out there, from array languages to lisps, and they don't give me the feeling of "just a different syntax" but actually changed the way I think. So yeah, I love lisp now and spend most of my days writing it, but it also comes with the downside that now Java, C# and Golang look more similar than different to each other. > It would also allow to build a library of universal optimizations, etc. So I think programmers would benefit from having a single universal language. I think assuming everyone would use the same hardware, same environment and same workflows to solve the same problems, this would make a lot of sense and would be hugely beneficial! But in reality lots of problems need different solutions, which has to be made in different ways, by different people who think differently. So because the world is plural, we need many programming languages too. Overall I feel like that's a benefit.

TimTheTinker 1y ago
> they don't give me the feeling of "just a different syntax" but actually changed the way I think. Not only that, but languages that enable more concise expression of an idea (without losing clarity for readers) reduces the error rates of programs written in them. It's been proven that when not accounting for constraints imposed by a compiler/interpreter (like the Rust borrow checker), the average error rate per unit size of programs across widely varying languages is constant. So reducing the number of lines/expressions required to express ideas reduces the number of errors by the same factor. Brevity pays when readability isn't sacrificed.
js8 1y ago
> assuming everyone would use the same hardware, same environment and same workflows They don't have to. I would ideally represent HW, OS and compiler in the LC as well. Then primitives of the language that could be proven to be HW/OS/compiler independent could be abstracted and readily translated. For the ones that could not - well you have exact description of what the differences are.

ElevenLathe 1y ago

Racket is at least related to the kind of metalanguage system you're talking about. I've never actually done it, but to implement a new "#lang" in Racket, your job is essentially to write a "reader" for it that transliterates it to the classic Schemey Racket language. Libraries written in one #lang can then be called from one another (or not, if that's what you want -- a lot of the point of this in Racket is building little restricted teaching languages that have limited capabilities).

js8 1y ago
But why stop at Racket? Why not reduce the needed primitives even further down to LC?