guitarvydas08/16/2022, 3:55 AM
Personal Dynamic Media08/16/2022, 4:03 AM
Chris Maughan08/16/2022, 6:23 AM
Jack Rusher08/16/2022, 6:43 AM
Tom Larkworthy08/16/2022, 7:28 AM
I write a bug, I try to compile it, and the computer refuses to, and highlights a line with an error
Anyway, I shifted my focus to visibility at runtime and I think it's a better tradeoff for than types for smaller programs. VERY large software spans the network and database and those are untypes so everything becomes dynamically typed eventually at the other end of the scale too.
I write a bug and I run it, and the computer crashes and highlights the the line with a stack trace
Konrad Hinsen08/16/2022, 7:57 AM
Chris Maughan08/16/2022, 8:48 AM
Tony Worm08/16/2022, 1:06 PM
Jack Rusher08/16/2022, 2:57 PM
Tony Worm08/16/2022, 2:58 PM
how to make better programming languagesHow does one define better?
Chris Maughan08/17/2022, 11:13 AM
1. Programming languages themselves contain ideas, and ideas about how to make better programming languages are very much in scope for FoC efforts. This is especially true when we consider the environment in which a language is embedded, rather than reducing it to syntax + denotational semantics.Yes, I was thinking more about how to 'implement' those new things; languages or otherwise, to be efficient.
2. It was phrased in such a way that it seemed like it was trying to shut down @guitarvydas's thread. (Probably not your intention!)Certainly not; just a too-brief reaction to the post!
A question about "you can achieve that just as easily with most languages" — do you think it would be "just as easy" to build Erlang's OTP or write a real-time scheduler in Ruby?That is a very fair point; maybe using a C extension 😉 Perhaps 'you can achieve the most in the quickest time using a language you know'. i.e. I could probably build a scheduler the fastest in C++; and you (speculating) might build one faster in Lisp than Ruby.... etc.