5 ms·
Of course we need a new programming language - but i don't think we need GO. Here's my personal whishlist: * Concurrency as default (i don't want to express exp
by st-keller 17y ago
Of course we need a new programming language - but i don't think we need GO.
Here's my personal whishlist:
* Concurrency as default (i don't want to express explicitly which parts of my porogram can run in parallel).
* I want my programs to be able to run backwards natively (not that kind that MS pseudo backwards-debugging feature crap). i personally call this feature an "entropy-shield"
* a really pure functional language (not that "pure functional" languages that allow and than try to monad away "non-functional functions"
Such a language has to be completely time-agnostic - that means it will never "run" a program.
But - as always - nobody will know what i'm taking about ;-)
- jon_dahl 17y agoMy wishlist: a Perl successor that takes the functional path, not the OO path (like Ruby). Also, one that plays well with either C/C++/Unix or the JVM, for deployment practicality. I think I want Lua + ML in one.
- stcredzero 17y agoAbout 90% of the time in the better Smalltalk implementations, you can tell the debugger to forget the last few stack frames, or jump back to the "start" of the current one. Nearly unfettered replay-ability is almost as good as stepping backwards.
- st-keller 17y agoI agree - If you're focused on debugging. But there's much more to that. "Running backwards" is not "replay". Running backwards a clock-program will result in hands turning anti-clockwise. Not mentioned the possibilities you can do, if program-speed can be set beetween 100% and -100%. I think most people think about that as they do with nearly every true innovation: "What schould that be good for?"