this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
19 points (91.3% liked)
Programming Languages
1187 readers
1 users here now
Hello!
This is the current Lemmy equivalent of https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/.
The content and rules are the same here as they are over there. Taken directly from the /r/ProgrammingLanguages overview:
This community is dedicated to the theory, design and implementation of programming languages.
Be nice to each other. Flame wars and rants are not welcomed. Please also put some effort into your post.
This isn't the right place to ask questions such as "What language should I use for X", "what language should I learn", and "what's your favorite language". Such questions should be posted in /c/learn_programming or /c/programming.
This is the right place for posts like the following:
- "Check out this new language I've been working on!"
- "Here's a blog post on how I implemented static type checking into this compiler"
- "I want to write a compiler, where do I start?"
- "How does the Java compiler work? How does it handle forward declarations/imports/targeting multiple platforms/?"
- "How should I test my compiler? How are other compilers and interpreters like gcc, Java, and python tested?"
- "What are the pros/cons of ?"
- "Compare and contrast vs. "
- "Confused about the semantics of this language"
- "Proceedings from PLDI / OOPSLA / ICFP / "
See /r/ProgrammingLanguages for specific examples
Related online communities
- ProgLangDesign.net
- /r/ProgrammingLanguages Discord
- Lamdda the Ultimate
- Language Design Stack Exchange
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Very neat! Is it embeddable? There are plenty of statically typed languages but there are hardly any statically typed embeddable languages.
Quite a lot to like here. I only skimmed it but some things that seem like slightly odd choices:
>
instead of->
for return types. The latter is pretty clearly nicer IMO and less confusing.type name
instead ofname: type
. The latter is less confusing and plays better with type inference and inlay hints. Easier to parse too.range(0..256)
and unsigned likerange(0..)
and then use flow typing to convert between them.Author's comment on lobste.rs: