LangMakers

6 ms·

1.
Getters and Setters in Kind(github.com)
3 points by LangMakers 5y ago|4 comments
2.
by LangMakers 5y ago
I think Kind-Core should be that language. It is the simplest proof kernel, after all, by far :) And it has nothing human or inventive. Basically just the lambda calculus with the self dependent function type. But I guess it ultimately is t
3.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Speaking of names, I love yours
4.
by LangMakers 5y ago
You're forced to be in the Either monad to use your `abort` though, which kinda beats the point (you could just use the Maybe monad...). It is refreshing to be able to just throw an abort literally anywhere in your code, and get rid of
5.
by LangMakers 5y ago
I'm both proud and ashamed of this rant. At least it changed my views about some subjects.
6.
by LangMakers 5y ago
They are only used in case-of and monadic blocks, and allow avoiding commas and semicolons everywhere else without having the annoying issues with meaningful spaces! I totally understand your initial impression, but consider reading my th
7.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Oh, ok, then I was ignorant about {..} - sorry! You still need to rename every field you need, though. So Haskell is, at best, comparably verbose, and, at worst, much more. It also kind of encourage one-letter variable names. About the mona
8.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Fair point! That is a recent update of Haskell, though (one I wasn't aware of when designing the case syntax). It does agree with my point, though, right? > The main problem with `do`-inspired monadic notation is that it forces mona
9.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Hmm. I understand your rejection for `{}`, but I really think the end result feels nothing like the Java experience. Can I have a shot at defending it? :) It will be a long answer including some of my reasonings, and by all means feel free
10.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Is that really the case, though? Python, C, Rust, Ruby, Go, R, Swift, Perl. One is type of snake, the other is a type stone, and then there is a freaking letter. It seems like the less googlable the name is, the popular programming language
11.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Thanks for the compliment on FmcToJS! It is probably the most messy part of the whole project though. We can't wait to port it entirely to [JavaScript.kind]( https://github.com/uwu-tech/Kind/blob/master&#x
12.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Note that Kind is NOT terminating by default. It takes the opposite stand. Expressivity is the default, so you can write recursions and loops freely, as in Haskell or any other conventional language. Consistency is a planned opt-in, which y
13.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Kind has a "how I learned to stop worrying and love the `Type:Type`" vibe. That doesn't make it invalid as a proof language. It just inverts the priority: instead of consistency being the default and expressivity being opt-in
14.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Yep, there is that, too. You lose the ability to erase types when compiling, so you must have a representation of types at runtime, and you need to pattern-match on them. That inefficiency won't show up in normal programs, though, but
15.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Yes! We're 1 file away from supporting a Python (and any other) back-end. For example, [this]( https://github.com/uwu-tech/Kind/blob/master/base/Kind/Comp/... ) is the simplified JS bac
16.
by LangMakers 5y ago
Yes, that is the gist of it: we can't do this. Negative results need to be communicated, too! But that's not all there is to it. The fact we do present a type almost identical to Path and Interval with self-types, and the fact tha
17.
First class modules with self types(github.com)
2 points by LangMakers 5y ago|0 comments