bslatkin

5 ms·

1.
Mitchell Hashimoto uses a simple code editor(youtube.com)
2 points by bslatkin 3y ago|0 comments
2.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Contact form here: https://quil.la/FVZ3PMZC Thanks!
3.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Great! Please send it my way so I don't miss it. Thank you
4.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Scala has a lot of interesting concepts in it for sure! The problem is that the JVM is a deal-breaker, either because of its complexity or because of the associated licensing risk. Clojure has the same problem, for what it's worth.
5.
by bslatkin 4y ago
For a very simple, single-expression lambda function I agree you don't need an explicit return. Even Python skips the "return" for lambdas. But for anything more complex, I find explicit returns, especially early returns, mak
6.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Let me know if you'd like to give it a shot to see how gunky it is!
7.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Thank you. I think you've basically summarized the approach! If you have any specific guidance to that end please send me an email or DM with details :)
8.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Let's keep going with the building analogy. You're running a cabinet making company. You've got all kinds of hand tools and power tools. You build jigs to make certain repetitive tasks faster. Then a ridiculously difficult de
9.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I understand what you mean. But I expect most potential users want explicit returns because they're familiar and more approachable for beginners.
10.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I think Spark is a good example of where the functional paradigm has done well in a niche.
11.
by bslatkin 4y ago
It's SSA. If you use (define) in Racket is it no longer functional?
12.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I'm not an Elixir expert at all, but one important feature I believe is missing: explicit returns.
13.
by bslatkin 4y ago
How should an early return if statement work instead?
14.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Agreed that seeing structure is important. I mean operating on it at a higher level like https://calva.io/paredit/
15.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I love to swing a hammer as much as the next programmer. But if you offer me a nail gun, even with slightly lower precision, I will happily use it the majority of the time and revert to my hand tools when it's most appropriate. This is
16.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I've got a working interpreter and compiler for the initial language. I've had a few people take it for a spin and they were able to rapidly learn it and start contributing, despite having expressed frustration in trying FP langua
17.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Some parentheses languages are much easier to use if you're familiar with a structural editor, for example.
18.
by bslatkin 4y ago
The conversation happened in ~2008. Julia has a lot of great ideas in it for sure. Why hasn't it gotten more popular?
19.
by bslatkin 4y ago
It's true and that is one of the largest challenges. Producing something that feels familiar (but not error prone) has been the way I've solved such conflicts so far.
20.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I'm sorry to make you wait.
21.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Great examples. Another question that leads to frustration is "can I use my existing code editor for this"? People are turned off when the answer is "no"
22.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Exactly.
23.
by bslatkin 4y ago
It's an unpaid personal open source project.
24.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Thanks! Right now the language's codebase is about 50KLOC. There's an interpreter for fast iteration and a compiler built on LLVM for producing native binaries. I'd like to make more progress on the parallel computing functio
25.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Thank you! Imagine everything we like about Python, remove some warts, make it functional. It should feel familiar and appealing to a Python programmer.
26.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Thanks for reporting that — I have no idea how that could be happening. Site is hosted on Blogger so it's a pretty vanilla setup.
27.
by bslatkin 4y ago
Why do you think so many Lisp fans (e.g., Norvig) went on to use Python instead of those ML alternatives?
28.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I've had a similar experience in a large Python codebase!
29.
by bslatkin 4y ago
100% agree with both of these comments. I'd love to see a resurgence of interest in this area.
30.
by bslatkin 4y ago
I agree that another language that's better for functional programming would make this more compelling. Python has a lot of limitations in this area. I think all of those alternatives you listed (Julia, Clojure, etc) include turn-offs

More ›