5 ms·

Last time I checked Io was slow and it didn't solve any new problems. If I wanted a slow OO language, I would rather keep using ruby/python as I already know th

by codexon 12y ago

Last time I checked Io was slow and it didn't solve any new problems. If I wanted a slow OO language, I would rather keep using ruby/python as I already know them. Haxe has the small niche of flash type games, and I think it is doing fine in that area. But to expect it to be as popular as a general purpose language is not warranted.

klibertp 12y ago
Haxe is general purpose language. It compiles - among other things - to Neko VM, which is a really nice little VM, good for rapid prototyping and to C++ code which is good for everything. The latter is how Haxe supports iOS IIRC. Io is not "slow", although the level of dynamism it provides has obvious performance downsides. It's generally "fast enough" and - in my experience - a bit faster than CPython. Slower than JITed Lua though. It does, however, solve the C10k problem with its coroutines, actors and futures, which are implemented transparently for the user and with niceties like automatic deadlock detection (on runtime). It's not exactly anything new, but it was new when Io first appeared (I mean the implementation as a language feature, not the concept which is probably 3x as old as even I am). It has also very nice C FFI and very flexible, easily modifiable syntax and optional lazy evaluation which makes it great for developing DSLs. That being said I don't "expect" these languages to be popular. For the most part, for most developers out there, it genuinely makes no sense to know them. I'd like them to be more popular, but I'm not stressing over this. I know them and I think I can use them to my advantage where it makes sense and that's enough for me personally.
- codexon 12y ago
  But the thing is that Haxe doesn't really solve anything else other than being good for flash games. So even if it is Turing Complete, there is no point in spending time learning it if you do not care about making flash games. And last time I checked, Io was slower than CPython and offered nothing more than a little more ideological OO purity. It didn't have any killer feature.

by codexon 12y ago

klibertp 12y ago

Haxe is general purpose language. It compiles - among other things - to Neko VM, which is a really nice little VM, good for rapid prototyping and to C++ code which is good for everything. The latter is how Haxe supports iOS IIRC. Io is not "slow", although the level of dynamism it provides has obvious performance downsides. It's generally "fast enough" and - in my experience - a bit faster than CPython. Slower than JITed Lua though. It does, however, solve the C10k problem with its coroutines, actors and futures, which are implemented transparently for the user and with niceties like automatic deadlock detection (on runtime). It's not exactly anything new, but it was new when Io first appeared (I mean the implementation as a language feature, not the concept which is probably 3x as old as even I am). It has also very nice C FFI and very flexible, easily modifiable syntax and optional lazy evaluation which makes it great for developing DSLs. That being said I don't "expect" these languages to be popular. For the most part, for most developers out there, it genuinely makes no sense to know them. I'd like them to be more popular, but I'm not stressing over this. I know them and I think I can use them to my advantage where it makes sense and that's enough for me personally.

codexon 12y ago
But the thing is that Haxe doesn't really solve anything else other than being good for flash games. So even if it is Turing Complete, there is no point in spending time learning it if you do not care about making flash games. And last time I checked, Io was slower than CPython and offered nothing more than a little more ideological OO purity. It didn't have any killer feature.