I wonder how many people here made their own programming language(s) and what was the original vision for it.
I'm working on a Python clone with better parallelism, goto/jump support and lack of objects.
Picrel is FizzBuzz in it, the two functions have similar performance. Nobody needs objects when you already have dict.
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Nobody needs objects when you already have dict
An object is just a dict. https://streamable.com/nm3sk2
Maybe I'm too much of a normie but I've never run into a situation where I felt I needed a programming language that didn't already exist
My company internally has a really shit dynamic one with no error checking until the line is hit. This is an issue when you run a 48 hour simulation and your entire results set is nuked from a typo on the last line of your post processing.
I'm writing a statically typed language that compiles to the shit one.
Why did you change def to func?
I prefer the Go way. After all, the lang is written in Go.
>the lang is written in Go
are you using participle to parse the syntax? just curious
I thought about making some shorthand flavor syntax for data constructs that would parse into other languages as needed, but the auto-complete felt like too much work and without that I didn't see the point.
>goto
NGMI
>lack of objects
extremely based
I dont understand this trendy seething about objects. Obviously any tool is bad if you try using it for everything, but this should be obvious. Apart from homosexuals on youtube cashing out on fanning and feeding into this, I have yet to actually hear any substantial argument for why OOP shouldnt exist at all. Python is utter dogshit yet everyone creams their assless chaps over it, so make it make sense
>Nobody needs objects when you already have dict.
I think you might like some of Rich Hickey's ideas on language design
Nice video. I was working on a GUI library for the lang and had to convert tkinter events into dicts (or pairings, which is how I name them in it).
what does you syntax for "pairings" (not a fan of the name btw) look like?
if you treat commas as whitespace and instead have people use parens or something if they want to use more complex expressions, you can save everyone a lot of typing.
There are too many programming languages.
Made my own programming language for very highly parallel hardware. It sucked so much! It's best forgotten, especially as it is useless.
I've also written chunks of other languages. Not the original vision, but definitely contributions. There's a fair chance you've used code I've written today and don't know it.
My advice? Try to have only a small number of basic ideas, and make those ideas work together in expected ways as much as possible. If people want to put a goto in the middle of an expression and you can possibly assign some semantics to it, let them do so. It enables dumb stuff, but it also enables smart stuff that you've not yet thought of.
And really try to avoid mutable values (especially if shared). So many bugs come from that one thing.
>I'm working on a Python clone
already off to an irredeemable start
>with better parallelism,
ok
>goto/jump support
sure
>and lack of objects.
absolute moronation
>Nobody needs objects when you already have dict.
sorry I don't take advise from pyshit gay baby morons. of course a dumbfrick pyshitter diaper baby would say something so moronic.
OOP is POO
>objects = OOP
not a real programmer, got it. i assume you just parrot all opinions from that moron literally who youtuber with the shitty takes.
filtered by OOP
wiped by POO
pajeets CANT STAND being filtered by the might of a language that doesnt wipe their ass for them
>tfw saar did not redeem object
Having objects is confusing. Why should there be some weirdo data type that can have functions and variables when you already can have those just fine? Dicts are also not essential, but I thought having variable number of arguments in a function is worthy of implementation.
>Dicts are also not essential
Having something to be a value that is a name-to-value mapping is quite useful. That's what a dict is. Conceptually, they could be done with a Lisp alist, but they suck so having a struct (for a fixed mapping) or a hashtable (variable mapping) is better.
>having objects is confusing
having low IQ is not an argument
I'm making a lang that's a more modern objc/low level version of smalltalk. I don't like swift very much and I miss the brackets for sending messages. The latest thing I'm figuring out is wether I want a different syntax for functions and for procedures. It'd be () for pure functions and [] for impure functions. After some feedback it doesn't seem like it's worth it so everything within [] would be an expression.
>Nobody needs objects when you already have dict.
Lua already exists bro
OP sounds like either a troll or a moron; most others ITT also
Serious question, if an AI was programming itself, would it even need OOP?
I felt like OOP was only for massive collaboration to stay organized.
what's with the switch without a value in fizzbuzz? why is it called switch when it's just an if-else ladder?
is there a switch/match expression that can be assigned to a variable, returned from a function, etc.?
what happens if cases are not exhaustive?
why are you making a dynamically typed language in 2024? even python has yielded to static type supremacy