3 ms·

The messes that callback/promise-heavy JavaScript make are a good example of why we need syntactic abstraction in the language. With a proper macro system, thi

The messes that callback/promise-heavy JavaScript make are a good example of why we need syntactic abstraction in the language. With a proper macro system, this whole async mess could be abstracted away and we could write nice linear code.

mbrock 11y ago
In Scheme, for example, a solution would be likely to involve delimited reified continuations and not need much in the way of macros. It's not obvious to me that the problem can be solved accurately with just syntactic macros. Would the solution involve transforming code into CPS?
- davexunit 11y ago
  Yes, delimited continuations would be a big part of the solution in Scheme. The macros would just be the sugar on top of the whole system such that you didn't have to write out all of the lambdas and prompting and aborting of the continuations. I've implemented a coroutine system this way and it works nicely.
Too 11y ago
Yeah, i cant believe async support is not a required check box for programming languages nowadays. Almost all the code I write is asynchronous and it is a pita to always wrestle around different patterns exposed by various libraries, and write bloat for things that are essentially sequential just that they happen to involve a lot of io latency. No, instead we get syntax sugar for writing shorter get/set-properties.
- davexunit 11y ago
  This is why I think macro systems ought to be a must-have feature in modern programming languages. There's no way that language designers can anticipate every type of convenient syntax, nor would they accept everything that we might want. Then, if they decide to add the new syntax we've been clamoring for, we have to wait for the implementation that includes it to become widely available, especially so in the case of JavaScript. We lowly programmers should be able to put on our language designer hat and extend the syntax of our languages as needed.

mbrock 11y ago

In Scheme, for example, a solution would be likely to involve delimited reified continuations and not need much in the way of macros. It's not obvious to me that the problem can be solved accurately with just syntactic macros. Would the solution involve transforming code into CPS?

davexunit 11y ago
Yes, delimited continuations would be a big part of the solution in Scheme. The macros would just be the sugar on top of the whole system such that you didn't have to write out all of the lambdas and prompting and aborting of the continuations. I've implemented a coroutine system this way and it works nicely.

Too 11y ago

Yeah, i cant believe async support is not a required check box for programming languages nowadays. Almost all the code I write is asynchronous and it is a pita to always wrestle around different patterns exposed by various libraries, and write bloat for things that are essentially sequential just that they happen to involve a lot of io latency. No, instead we get syntax sugar for writing shorter get/set-properties.

davexunit 11y ago
This is why I think macro systems ought to be a must-have feature in modern programming languages. There's no way that language designers can anticipate every type of convenient syntax, nor would they accept everything that we might want. Then, if they decide to add the new syntax we've been clamoring for, we have to wait for the implementation that includes it to become widely available, especially so in the case of JavaScript. We lowly programmers should be able to put on our language designer hat and extend the syntax of our languages as needed.