5 ms·

Avail Programming Language

54 points by wuschel 12y ago

untothebreach 12y ago
Ha, I saw this mentioned in the post from yesterday about creating your own language[1] and also went to check it out. It looks facinating, but I haven't had time to really dive into it yet. Anyone have more experience with it and care to weigh in? 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9040029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9040029
sebastianconcpt 12y ago
In the articulate programming paradigm, a programmer undertakes a project by developing a domain-appropriate lexicon and phraseology which are leveraged directly to implement a solution that is readily accessible to domain experts and software experts alike. Articulate programming is nothing more, and nothing less, than using the right language and conceptual framework for the job. I like what's being tried here. Many people like to be expressive and think while they talk. Is not unreasonable that they might want to program a system using the same social trait. Specially to get things done evading the hard dependency with programmers that have awful communication skills (close to toxic some times).
- ekidd 12y ago
  You can find plenty of programmers with excellent communication skills; you might just need to look in other places or offer more money. People who possess multiple valuable skills often demand a higher wage than people who possess only one. As for the language, the general idea of English-like programming is far from new. Here are a few arbitrary historical examples, the most impressive of which is Inform, a language for writing interactive fiction: http://inform7.com/learn/eg/bronze/source.html http://inform7.com/learn/eg/bronze/source.html https://cukes.info/ https://cukes.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk http://www.csis.ul.ie/cobol/examples/Conditn/IterIf.htm http://www.csis.ul.ie/cobol/examples/Conditn/IterIf.htm None of these revolutionized programming. The hard part of programming isn't learning to read a specialized notation. The first hard part of programming is learning how to think in a logical, step-by-step fashion without omitting even the most intuitively obvious details. The second hard part of programming is learning how to maintain a large, complex program as requirements change. Neither of these is made much easier by writing in a rigid, artificial dialect of English.
  - PMan74 12y ago
    > the general idea of English-like programming is far from new Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL
  - kyllo 12y ago
    IMHO the hardest part of programming is identifying and fulfilling the ephemeral requests of users who aren't sure what they want until they see the thing they told you to build for them and realize it's not what they had in mind.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    To be honest, even though the concept of English-like programming is commonly berated across various circles, I think the REBOL language might have had potential to prove otherwise. Sadly, like Plan 9, its long-term unwieldy licensing killed its momentum.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- current_call 12y ago
  Specially to get things done evading the hard dependency with programmers that have awful communication skills (close to toxic some times). All the good programmers I know can communicate fine.
al2o3cr 12y ago
Looks like a static-typed version of AppleScript at first glance. It's hard to say who this is targeted at - people who really want the English-like syntax are going to squirm at things like "writer : [string]→⊤".
markvangulik 12y ago
I'm one of the authors. If you're concerned that what we built is a mere natural language parsing engine, have a look here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/faq.html#q3 https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/faq.html...
- omaranto 12y ago
  That's a funny use of the word "mere"!
  - markvangulik 12y ago
    It was intended with humor, of course, but really creating a natural language syntax is a tiny capability of Avail. We're working on the details at the moment, but we're fairly certain that every programming language ever written can become a mere dialect of Avail. Except running on the same jitted VM. And trivially able to intermix with code in other languages, even in the same module. Even within a statement. The RPN calculator example might give you an idea of what we can do today. Also, "Quiz DSL.avail" might be of interest, since it's not just traditional programming languages that Avail is going to eat for breakfast. Brace yourself for what's coming.
    - kd0amg 12y ago
      I'm still a little unclear on what language extension looks like when you want to do things other than adding new procedures. Do you have any examples of manipulating evaluation order (like choosing to evaluate arguments right to left or left to right, or handling certain arguments lazily) or adding new binding forms or a custom type system?
      - markvangulik 12y ago
        At this exact moment, Avail can only evaluate expressions left-to-right, except of course for functions (block expressions, using [] notation resembling Smalltalk). However, I'm close to completing the macro mechanism that will allow the same flexibility of syntax present in method names (keywords/operator tokens, argument positions, guillemet-enclosed repeated argument groups, etc), but for constructs that run at compile time with parse trees instead of values. The actual macro mechanisms have been working for some time, but were disabled until we were able to represent the ~dozen syntactic constructs of Avail purely as macros. Then any new syntax wouldn't be in conflict with existing syntax. When that's working we'll toss the existing compiler (the one that knows anything about Avail's current syntax, like statements and functions and variable declarations), and use the compiler that knows nothing about Avail – just how to parse methods and macros. Then we'll be able to support arbitrary evaluation orders, declaration syntax, treating some expressions as lazy, alternative scoping models, etc. As for custom types, we're investigating ideas about carrying purity annotations through user-defined control structures. Kind of hard to describe in this forum, though.
orkj 12y ago
I was listening to Avail, the band, today. Great band. (wonder if anyone from the HN crowd has ever heard of them). Other than that, interesting project!
- corysama 12y ago
  Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.
  - orkj 12y ago
    I agree with this approach. Sorry about that
- _neil 12y ago
  I just recently left Richmond, VA and drove down Lombardy St. every day on my way to/from work.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - _neil 12y ago
      I know it looks like a random and out of context comment now that I re-read it. But someone even somewhat familiar with the band he mentioned would probably understand why it was relevant.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
markvangulik 12y ago
Just to whet your appetite, consider this: Method "_plus_" is [ a : number, b : number | a + b ]:number; Print: 5 plus 6; The entire language is built this way.
protomyth 12y ago
Is there a language reference document? I didn't see one under the documentation link.
- markvangulik 12y ago
  Unfortunately there's no guide to walk you through the library. However, we have code level documentation in a live searchable form here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/stacks/library-documentation/index.html https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/stacks/l... There is also a strong beginning of a "cookbook" of expressions here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/expression-cookbook.html https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/expressi... There's also coverage of a sizable chunk of Avail's type system here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/type-system/index.html https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/type-sys...
breckinloggins 12y ago
I feel like many of us are searching and probing around the same space. It definitely seems to be the case that existing programming languages are way too rigid, but that the current popular example of "just make the language whatever you desire" (Lisp) is not quite right, either. It's close, but just far enough away that it seems alien. I'll definitely be paying closer attention to this as it agrees with a lot of hunches that I have about what's wrong with programming as we currently practice it. Thanks so much for the link. I'm taking notes :) EDIT: Anyone who likes Avail, and particularly the points made in the History section, should probably read CTM. [1] [1] http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Techniques-Models-Computer-Programming/dp/0262220695 http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Techniques-Models-Computer-Pr...
- smt88 12y ago
  In the web space, we're all actually looking for languages that are more rigid (rebelling against PHP, JavaScript, Ruby, etc.)
  - breckinloggins 12y ago
    True, but in a language that's designed to quickly make other languages, the rigidity can be controlled by the system architects. An example of a current language with this philosophy is actually Typescript. The gradual typing means that you, as a module designer, can choose to make rigid exactly what you wish (and choose how much rigidity you require). If the consumer of that module also uses Typescript, your rigidity requirements will be respected. The reason we don't think of programming languages as being per-project, per-module, per-domain, etc, but rather as large global things is because we don't currently have a clue how to do that (and if we did, we don't have a clue how to make the tooling work). If and when we do, these types of conversations will seem quaint. One can hope, anyway...
CUViper 12y ago
Total tangent, but could someone start a .lang tld? We have so many that are naming themselves this way, could be avail.lang, go.lang, rust.lang, nim.lang, ...
- titanomachy 12y ago
  Awesome idea! Better ask these guys: http://www.iana.org/ http://www.iana.org/

54 points by wuschel 12y ago

Ha, I saw this mentioned in the post from yesterday about creating your own language[1] and also went to check it out. It looks facinating, but I haven't had time to really dive into it yet. Anyone have more experience with it and care to weigh in? 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9040029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9040029

sebastianconcpt 12y ago

In the articulate programming paradigm, a programmer undertakes a project by developing a domain-appropriate lexicon and phraseology which are leveraged directly to implement a solution that is readily accessible to domain experts and software experts alike. Articulate programming is nothing more, and nothing less, than using the right language and conceptual framework for the job. I like what's being tried here. Many people like to be expressive and think while they talk. Is not unreasonable that they might want to program a system using the same social trait. Specially to get things done evading the hard dependency with programmers that have awful communication skills (close to toxic some times).

ekidd 12y ago
You can find plenty of programmers with excellent communication skills; you might just need to look in other places or offer more money. People who possess multiple valuable skills often demand a higher wage than people who possess only one. As for the language, the general idea of English-like programming is far from new. Here are a few arbitrary historical examples, the most impressive of which is Inform, a language for writing interactive fiction: http://inform7.com/learn/eg/bronze/source.html http://inform7.com/learn/eg/bronze/source.html https://cukes.info/ https://cukes.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk http://www.csis.ul.ie/cobol/examples/Conditn/IterIf.htm http://www.csis.ul.ie/cobol/examples/Conditn/IterIf.htm None of these revolutionized programming. The hard part of programming isn't learning to read a specialized notation. The first hard part of programming is learning how to think in a logical, step-by-step fashion without omitting even the most intuitively obvious details. The second hard part of programming is learning how to maintain a large, complex program as requirements change. Neither of these is made much easier by writing in a rigid, artificial dialect of English.
- PMan74 12y ago
  > the general idea of English-like programming is far from new Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL
- kyllo 12y ago
  IMHO the hardest part of programming is identifying and fulfilling the ephemeral requests of users who aren't sure what they want until they see the thing they told you to build for them and realize it's not what they had in mind.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  To be honest, even though the concept of English-like programming is commonly berated across various circles, I think the REBOL language might have had potential to prove otherwise. Sadly, like Plan 9, its long-term unwieldy licensing killed its momentum.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
current_call 12y ago
Specially to get things done evading the hard dependency with programmers that have awful communication skills (close to toxic some times). All the good programmers I know can communicate fine.

al2o3cr 12y ago

Looks like a static-typed version of AppleScript at first glance. It's hard to say who this is targeted at - people who really want the English-like syntax are going to squirm at things like "writer : [string]→⊤".

markvangulik 12y ago

I'm one of the authors. If you're concerned that what we built is a mere natural language parsing engine, have a look here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/faq.html#q3 https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/faq.html...

omaranto 12y ago
That's a funny use of the word "mere"!
- markvangulik 12y ago
  It was intended with humor, of course, but really creating a natural language syntax is a tiny capability of Avail. We're working on the details at the moment, but we're fairly certain that every programming language ever written can become a mere dialect of Avail. Except running on the same jitted VM. And trivially able to intermix with code in other languages, even in the same module. Even within a statement. The RPN calculator example might give you an idea of what we can do today. Also, "Quiz DSL.avail" might be of interest, since it's not just traditional programming languages that Avail is going to eat for breakfast. Brace yourself for what's coming.
  - kd0amg 12y ago
    I'm still a little unclear on what language extension looks like when you want to do things other than adding new procedures. Do you have any examples of manipulating evaluation order (like choosing to evaluate arguments right to left or left to right, or handling certain arguments lazily) or adding new binding forms or a custom type system?
    - markvangulik 12y ago
      At this exact moment, Avail can only evaluate expressions left-to-right, except of course for functions (block expressions, using [] notation resembling Smalltalk). However, I'm close to completing the macro mechanism that will allow the same flexibility of syntax present in method names (keywords/operator tokens, argument positions, guillemet-enclosed repeated argument groups, etc), but for constructs that run at compile time with parse trees instead of values. The actual macro mechanisms have been working for some time, but were disabled until we were able to represent the ~dozen syntactic constructs of Avail purely as macros. Then any new syntax wouldn't be in conflict with existing syntax. When that's working we'll toss the existing compiler (the one that knows anything about Avail's current syntax, like statements and functions and variable declarations), and use the compiler that knows nothing about Avail – just how to parse methods and macros. Then we'll be able to support arbitrary evaluation orders, declaration syntax, treating some expressions as lazy, alternative scoping models, etc. As for custom types, we're investigating ideas about carrying purity annotations through user-defined control structures. Kind of hard to describe in this forum, though.

orkj 12y ago

I was listening to Avail, the band, today. Great band. (wonder if anyone from the HN crowd has ever heard of them). Other than that, interesting project!

corysama 12y ago
Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.
- orkj 12y ago
  I agree with this approach. Sorry about that
_neil 12y ago
I just recently left Richmond, VA and drove down Lombardy St. every day on my way to/from work.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - _neil 12y ago
    I know it looks like a random and out of context comment now that I re-read it. But someone even somewhat familiar with the band he mentioned would probably understand why it was relevant.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

markvangulik 12y ago

Just to whet your appetite, consider this: Method "_plus_" is [ a : number, b : number | a + b ]:number; Print: 5 plus 6; The entire language is built this way.

protomyth 12y ago

Is there a language reference document? I didn't see one under the documentation link.

markvangulik 12y ago
Unfortunately there's no guide to walk you through the library. However, we have code level documentation in a live searchable form here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/stacks/library-documentation/index.html https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/stacks/l... There is also a strong beginning of a "cookbook" of expressions here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/expression-cookbook.html https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/expressi... There's also coverage of a sizable chunk of Avail's type system here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/type-system/index.html https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/type-sys...

breckinloggins 12y ago

I feel like many of us are searching and probing around the same space. It definitely seems to be the case that existing programming languages are way too rigid, but that the current popular example of "just make the language whatever you desire" (Lisp) is not quite right, either. It's close, but just far enough away that it seems alien. I'll definitely be paying closer attention to this as it agrees with a lot of hunches that I have about what's wrong with programming as we currently practice it. Thanks so much for the link. I'm taking notes :) EDIT: Anyone who likes Avail, and particularly the points made in the History section, should probably read CTM. [1] [1] http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Techniques-Models-Computer-Programming/dp/0262220695 http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Techniques-Models-Computer-Pr...

smt88 12y ago
In the web space, we're all actually looking for languages that are more rigid (rebelling against PHP, JavaScript, Ruby, etc.)
- breckinloggins 12y ago
  True, but in a language that's designed to quickly make other languages, the rigidity can be controlled by the system architects. An example of a current language with this philosophy is actually Typescript. The gradual typing means that you, as a module designer, can choose to make rigid exactly what you wish (and choose how much rigidity you require). If the consumer of that module also uses Typescript, your rigidity requirements will be respected. The reason we don't think of programming languages as being per-project, per-module, per-domain, etc, but rather as large global things is because we don't currently have a clue how to do that (and if we did, we don't have a clue how to make the tooling work). If and when we do, these types of conversations will seem quaint. One can hope, anyway...

CUViper 12y ago

Total tangent, but could someone start a .lang tld? We have so many that are naming themselves this way, could be avail.lang, go.lang, rust.lang, nim.lang, ...

titanomachy 12y ago
Awesome idea! Better ask these guys: http://www.iana.org/ http://www.iana.org/