New programming language
Author
I'll keep this short and to the point. I've been working on a new programming language (based on Java) and I just want to see if anybody is particularly desperate for a certain feature. That's all. I can't reveal what I've done thus far, but the suggestions would be fantastic and could go a long way.
Thanks.
Ruby was developed some 15 years ago. It has only now taken off and proven its usefulness. And Ruby was based off lessons from Lisp and Smalltalk.
Therefore, don't hide your language like it's next world dominating paradigm. It's not. The sooner you open it and have people using it and commenting on it, the sooner you'll see what to focus on.
As for suggestions? You didn't even mention if your language is imperative or functional. Or perhaps it's logical. What does it currently support?
Therefore, don't hide your language like it's next world dominating paradigm. It's not. The sooner you open it and have people using it and commenting on it, the sooner you'll see what to focus on.
As for suggestions? You didn't even mention if your language is imperative or functional. Or perhaps it's logical. What does it currently support?
Quote:Original post by Antheus
Ruby was developed some 15 years ago. It has only now taken off and proven its usefulness. And Ruby was based off lessons from Lisp and Smalltalk.
Therefore, don't hide your language like it's next world dominating paradigm. It's not. The sooner you open it and have people using it and commenting on it, the sooner you'll see what to focus on.
As for suggestions? You didn't even mention if your language is imperative or functional. Or perhaps it's logical. What does it currently support?
Yes he did. He said its based on java. perhaps that is more of a hint tho.
p.s. i agree
My best suggestion would be to make it as little like java as you can. Other then that, powerful macro functionality (akin to lisp) goes along way.
Indy
Indy
Thoughts of the day:
If your language doesn't support first class functions or at least some half-assed implementation like .NET delegates I will promptly and unconditionally ignore it.
If you do not supply 'string+string' (or similar convenience stuff like Java doesn't) I will probably ignore it unless there's a good reason or you're doing something else cool.
If your language tries to do as much as possible in one line (often by making things into obscure operators) I will beat you with a stick.
If your language requires syntactically meaningful whitespace I will beat you with a stick.
If your language doesn't support first class functions or at least some half-assed implementation like .NET delegates I will promptly and unconditionally ignore it.
If you do not supply 'string+string' (or similar convenience stuff like Java doesn't) I will probably ignore it unless there's a good reason or you're doing something else cool.
If your language tries to do as much as possible in one line (often by making things into obscure operators) I will beat you with a stick.
If your language requires syntactically meaningful whitespace I will beat you with a stick.
First class functions with short and pretty syntax.
Lexical scoping (and closures).
Variants and pattern matching (see Haxe's enum/switch construct, but make matching recursive please).
A good type system (no primitives like 'int', everything should be classes/interfaces).
Consistency in naming (no size() vs. getLength() - it's wrong in multiple ways).
Orthogonality in features (no "properties" if there are methods, and no fields if there is lexical scoping and methods).
Automatic memory management.
Deterministic resource disposal for critical stuff (see C#'s "using" or do something with closures).
No NULL! Or at least, no nulls by default.
Local type inference.
I don't care much for whitespace, but readability and consistency is important. Having to write "public static final" ten times is however just redundant verbosity.
And that's all I can rant today. Look at Scala, it has half of these features (plus a lot that I didn't mention), is Java-like and is a pretty decent language.
Lexical scoping (and closures).
Variants and pattern matching (see Haxe's enum/switch construct, but make matching recursive please).
A good type system (no primitives like 'int', everything should be classes/interfaces).
Consistency in naming (no size() vs. getLength() - it's wrong in multiple ways).
Orthogonality in features (no "properties" if there are methods, and no fields if there is lexical scoping and methods).
Automatic memory management.
Deterministic resource disposal for critical stuff (see C#'s "using" or do something with closures).
No NULL! Or at least, no nulls by default.
Local type inference.
I don't care much for whitespace, but readability and consistency is important. Having to write "public static final" ten times is however just redundant verbosity.
And that's all I can rant today. Look at Scala, it has half of these features (plus a lot that I didn't mention), is Java-like and is a pretty decent language.
crappy delegates are C# not .NET. I hate them too.
but other .NET languages like Nemerle and F# have proper support for closures and first class function. The difference is akin to that between digging with a bulldozer or a broken shovel.
but other .NET languages like Nemerle and F# have proper support for closures and first class function. The difference is akin to that between digging with a bulldozer or a broken shovel.
Quote:Original post by Daerax
crappy delegates are C# not .NET. I hate them too.
but other .NET languages like Nemerle and F# have proper support for closures and first class function. The difference is akin to that between digging with a bulldozer or a broken shovel.
True true. Though I'm not sure how the F# FastFunc things exist as .NET types compared to System.Delegate; haven't gotten that far yet.
My thought of the day:
This forum is great for me to visit whenever I want to feel stupid :-(.
This forum is great for me to visit whenever I want to feel stupid :-(.
Quote:Original post by TelastynQuote:Original post by Daerax
crappy delegates are C# not .NET. I hate them too.
but other .NET languages like Nemerle and F# have proper support for closures and first class function. The difference is akin to that between digging with a bulldozer or a broken shovel.
True true. Though I'm not sure how the F# FastFunc things exist as .NET types compared to System.Delegate; haven't gotten that far yet.
Oh i c what you mean. .NET doesnt inherently support functions as types, F# ones are implemented in terms of regular classes and generics.
but then neither does the processor. having too much built in support in your framework makes it bulky and unweildy, better to have a general but powerfully flexible set of building blocks.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
