7 ms·

Julia is interesting for sure, but I think Clojure has had more of an impact in terms of what the future of languages might look like. I would argue the same fo

Julia is interesting for sure, but I think Clojure has had more of an impact in terms of what the future of languages might look like. I would argue the same for Rust as well.

dj0 12y ago
Agreed.
michaelochurch 12y ago
I agree on Clojure. Rust I'd need to know more about, but I may study it now that it's post-1.0. What do you think about Haskell's impact on the future? I think that static typing, although less popular as of now, could make a resurgence given the value it adds once one learns how to use the type system. Most of the negative reputation of static typing, I'd argue, comes from languages that are falling out of favor (C++, Java) and that never did static typing right in the first place.
- phyllostachys 12y ago
  Well, close to being post-1.0. I think it is Rust 1.0 (alpha) in January (the 9th) then (beta) 6 weeks later.
- coding4all 12y ago
  TLDR; Optional type systems are the future I hear a lot about Haskell but I don't see a lot about Haskell... Clojure has two optional type systems known as the core.typed library, and Prismatic's schema library. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. Use types when you need them and don't when you don't.
  - codygman 12y ago
    You are overlooking how powerful programming with types can be. This applies to Haskell, but even moreso to languages like Idris. Did you hear about Haxl[0]? [0]: https://code.facebook.com/projects/854888367872565/haxl/ https://code.facebook.com/projects/854888367872565/haxl/
    - coding4all 12y ago
      You're overlooking my entire comment...
      - codygman 12y ago
        No I'm not, but I guess there was a possibility of you thinking that. Let's erase all ambiguity. > TLDR; Optional type systems are the future Optional type systems have their place, but I think you are ignoring applications that types can have besides type assertion and documentation. > I hear a lot about Haskell but I don't see a lot about Haskell... It's a shame you haven't "seen" Haskell and have only heard about it, I know how that can make the entire language seem like vaporware. I personally have seen at least one big thing from a large company that used Haskell. I'm guessing you didn't see Facebook's semi-recent release of Haxl[0]. > Clojure has two optional type systems known as the core.typed library, and Prismatic's schema library. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. Use types when you need them and don't when you don't. Optional typing is cool, but it's not useful for type based programming since it makes types optional. You can do some cool stuff by programming types. Haskell does some of this, but Idris[1] does much more by taking advantage of dependent typing[2].
  - gw 12y ago
    I don't really consider Schema to be a type system, as it only works at runtime. It's more of a data validation library. Still very useful though.

Julia is interesting for sure, but I think Clojure has had more of an impact in terms of what the future of languages might look like. I would argue the same for Rust as well.

dj0 12y ago

Agreed.

michaelochurch 12y ago

I agree on Clojure. Rust I'd need to know more about, but I may study it now that it's post-1.0. What do you think about Haskell's impact on the future? I think that static typing, although less popular as of now, could make a resurgence given the value it adds once one learns how to use the type system. Most of the negative reputation of static typing, I'd argue, comes from languages that are falling out of favor (C++, Java) and that never did static typing right in the first place.

phyllostachys 12y ago
Well, close to being post-1.0. I think it is Rust 1.0 (alpha) in January (the 9th) then (beta) 6 weeks later.
coding4all 12y ago
TLDR; Optional type systems are the future I hear a lot about Haskell but I don't see a lot about Haskell... Clojure has two optional type systems known as the core.typed library, and Prismatic's schema library. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. Use types when you need them and don't when you don't.
- codygman 12y ago
  You are overlooking how powerful programming with types can be. This applies to Haskell, but even moreso to languages like Idris. Did you hear about Haxl[0]? [0]: https://code.facebook.com/projects/854888367872565/haxl/ https://code.facebook.com/projects/854888367872565/haxl/
  - coding4all 12y ago
    You're overlooking my entire comment...
    - codygman 12y ago
      No I'm not, but I guess there was a possibility of you thinking that. Let's erase all ambiguity. > TLDR; Optional type systems are the future Optional type systems have their place, but I think you are ignoring applications that types can have besides type assertion and documentation. > I hear a lot about Haskell but I don't see a lot about Haskell... It's a shame you haven't "seen" Haskell and have only heard about it, I know how that can make the entire language seem like vaporware. I personally have seen at least one big thing from a large company that used Haskell. I'm guessing you didn't see Facebook's semi-recent release of Haxl[0]. > Clojure has two optional type systems known as the core.typed library, and Prismatic's schema library. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. Use types when you need them and don't when you don't. Optional typing is cool, but it's not useful for type based programming since it makes types optional. You can do some cool stuff by programming types. Haskell does some of this, but Idris[1] does much more by taking advantage of dependent typing[2].
- gw 12y ago
  I don't really consider Schema to be a type system, as it only works at runtime. It's more of a data validation library. Still very useful though.