3 ms·
You can usually guess quality of programming language from the first page of its description. For LASP it clearly sucks. No simple example, are you kidding me?
by sytelus 11y ago
You can usually guess quality of programming language from the first page of its description. For LASP it clearly sucks. No simple example, are you kidding me? I finally dug out example at below link and all I can say is this is pretty ugly language. So many _ and curly brackets that it feels dizzy. None of the sample code is even remotely intuitively readable to make a guess what's going on.
http://christophermeiklejohn.com/lasp/erlang/2015/01/10/ad-counter-orset.html http://christophermeiklejohn.com/lasp/erlang/2015/01/10/ad-c...
- dang 11y agoPlease don't post comments to HN that dismiss new work so nastily. There are many ways of suggesting improvements that don't involve trampling all over someone's freshly planted garden.
- cmeiklejohn 11y agoThe syntax you're complaining about is Erlang's. (_ is to ignore a token in a pattern match, braces denote tuples.) I've added a simple example, because I received that criticism from others, so, thanks for your feedback. Lasp's prototypical implementation is provided as an Erlang library: this is a research language and we're researching the semantics of distributed computation and not the syntax. The syntax seen in the examples is extremely close to the syntax of the built in 'lists' module of Erlang, with the addition of having to declare types, because of Erlang's type system. This was done to make it seem natural to Erlang programmers. (Disclaimer, I'm one of the primary authors of Lasp, @cmeik on Twitter)
- rvirding 11y agoAaaahhhh, the syntax is different! Help, help, the world is coming to an end.