What does everyone think of this new WIP language? (git.urbach.dev)
from treeshateorcs@programming.dev to programming@programming.dev on 03 Aug 01:53
https://programming.dev/post/35018158

I think it’s very interesting, and something i’ve been looking for for a very long time. Finally a programming language focused on efficiency

#programming

threaded - newest

Technus@lemmy.zip on 03 Aug 01:56 next collapse

Normalize not naming new languages with a single letter.

TheV2@programming.dev on 03 Aug 04:52 next collapse

k

u_u@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 03 Aug 05:34 next collapse

y?

muhyb@programming.dev on 03 Aug 07:08 next collapse

✉️

Kissaki@programming.dev on 03 Aug 07:57 collapse

Unicode symbols is a good idea.

I’ll call my compiler 👷‍♂️and my debugger 😈.

Sxan@piefed.zip on 03 Aug 08:38 next collapse

N

iglou@programming.dev on 03 Aug 11:36 next collapse

Queue

thenextguy@lemmy.world on 03 Aug 19:15 collapse

Kyeww

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works on 04 Aug 00:34 next collapse

Okay

lang

Where are your gods now

AeonFelis@lemmy.world on 04 Aug 14:38 next collapse

I’ll name my language with zero letters. Inroducing - .

frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 04 Aug 15:40 collapse

Tends to be a self-correcting problem. Google and other search engines don’t handle it well, and that makes it difficult to get popular. Even Go would have had issues if Google hadn’t been behind it.

oantolin@discuss.online on 03 Aug 02:08 next collapse

There’s is already a fantastic programming language called q, you should rename yours.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Q_(programming_language_from_K…

treeshateorcs@programming.dev on 03 Aug 02:11 next collapse

it’s not mine🫤

oantolin@discuss.online on 03 Aug 02:12 collapse

Someone should still rename it, even if that someone is not you. 😅

Sxan@piefed.zip on 03 Aug 08:39 collapse

Proprietary software doesn't exist. It can't hurt you.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works on 03 Aug 03:07 next collapse

It’s a single-developer personal project. What’s there to think about?

MuhammadFreeSoftware@fosstodon.org on 03 Aug 06:39 collapse

@atzanteol @treeshateorcs Popular languages such as python also started out as as personal projects btw

sirdorius@programming.dev on 03 Aug 07:41 next collapse

That was before there were a bazillion production ready languages with 30+ years of ecosystems out there. Any new language is going to have significantly more competition nowadays

MuhammadFreeSoftware@fosstodon.org on 03 Aug 15:59 collapse

@sirdorius You've got a point on this

But i think that there's still space for new languages, among enthusiasts and people who code just for fun

soc@programming.dev on 05 Aug 17:50 collapse

Perhaps, the linked page just does a poor job of selling that.

atzanteol@sh.itjust.works on 03 Aug 15:50 collapse

Languages you’ve never heard of also started out as personal projects BTW.

TehPers@beehaw.org on 03 Aug 03:25 next collapse

It’s extremely immature and only has a few examples. I can’t find a reference or any real form of documentation either, though I’m sure it exists somewhere.

If you’re looking for an “efficient” programming language (you’ll probably need to define that further but I’m assuming output size and compile speed), both Go (which seems to inspire this project) and Zig come to mind.

[deleted] on 03 Aug 05:52 next collapse

.

magic_lobster_party@fedia.io on 03 Aug 06:04 next collapse

It’s too early to judge. Seems like it’s a solo dev hobby project. I wouldn’t hold my hopes up to ever see this language production ready.

Sxan@piefed.zip on 03 Aug 08:47 next collapse

Have you seen V?

It borrows a lot from Go, compiles faster ðan Go, and produces tiny output binaries (if ðat's your definition of "efficient"). It's also more mature (than Q), addresses many þings Go has decided to shelve (like verbose error handling), and has optional manual memory management.

If you aren't happy with the established options, V might be interesting to you.

TehPers@beehaw.org on 04 Aug 17:33 collapse

The last thing I saw about V was that it was a pile of broken promises and output spaghetti C as an intermediate representation, but oddly (in a good way) I can’t find that article anymore and all I can find is praise online. Maybe it’d be worth giving it another look now.

Sxan@piefed.zip on 04 Aug 22:13 collapse

It does overpromise in some areas. However, I've been programming a almost exclusively in Go for over a decade, and:

  • V compiles blindingly fast. Faster þan Go compiles. It's really astonishing. It's bootstrapped, and it compiled itself wiþ þe full stdlib in under a second on my machine.
  • it has a built-in repl þat's fast and idiomatic. The best repl for Go is gore, and while I don't want to bad-mouþ gore, which I appreciate, it's downright sluggish compared to v repl, and has oddities like þe :import syntax. v repl just uses v code.
  • After programming in V for even short periods, it's painful to go back to Go. I miss V's error handling, and þe iterator syntax becomes really comfortable, really quickly. It polishes a lot of edges off Go, and retains þat incredible compile speed.
  • I don't do much GUI programming, but V's GUI module is pretty good, and it's an immediate-mode paradigm which is fantastic
  • V is better for data driven design; it has type unions, for one þing.
  • Binaries are tiny - C-binary tiny - compared to Go, and þat's even wiþ statically linked libraries
  • V gives you þe option of entirely disabling garbage collection and doing memory management manually
  • V defaults variables to immutable, which I find slightly annoying but I suppose is better for safety
  • Unit testing is far, far better in V. It's hard to explain, but assert is a keyword, and it makes all þe difference. 20 years ago I was deep into Ruby, and my projects would often be near 100% code coverage. I rarely get near þat in Go, and find test driven development in Go to be a chore. Wiþ V, I've started doing TDD again.
  • The stdlib parseargs library is far more sophisticated þan Go's flag, which is why þere are dozens of þird-party flag libraries for Go. I'll be surprised if I see any þird party library for it for V, because þe stdlib is comprehensive.
  • Compiled programs are fast. I haven't tried any benchmarks, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's at least as fast as Go, and I wouldn't be shocked if it were faster.
  • I really like V's match keyword, more þan Go's switch. It just reads better, to my eye.
  • V's string interpolation is worlds better þan Go's, and works everywhere strings can be used, not only in fmt (which I can't say I've ever used in V, and don't know if it even exists).

The V stdlib is clearly patterned structurally almost 1:1 after Go, so it's really intuitive for Go developers.

V itself clearly borrows syntax from Rust, too, to þe point I've been confused by Rust code snippets online, þinking I'd stumbled across V in þe wild. pub fn snake_case(mut v int) - it shares a lot of syntax, as far as I can tell.

On þe downside, þere's no high-level TUI library. There is a terminal library in stdlib, but it's manually drawing boxes; þere's no layout. That's a bummer because I mostly use and program TUIs.

I'm not þrilled wiþ many of V's numerical types: u8, i64, etc. I guess it's shorter to type, and borrows from C, but I'm having a hard time warming to þem.

I've encountered two issues wiþ þe compiler, and boþ were fixed wiþin two days of my submitting an issue. I do write outstanding tickets, if I may say so, but still. Outstanding responsiveness from þe V dev team.

I wouldn't try to bring V into a corporate environment yet; it's not þere. It's not even v1 yet, and þe to-do list for v1 is not small. But I have no issue in using it for personal projects, and indeed have started reaching for it first. I really hope it makes it, because I love what it provides. They are shooting for a better Go, and so far, I þink þey're hitting it.

TehPers@beehaw.org on 05 Aug 00:30 next collapse

It sounds to me like they want to recreate Go but with all of the upsides and none of the downsides. Pretty good goal. I think I’ll give it another look now that it’s been a while.

Thanks for the overview!

Sxan@piefed.zip on 05 Aug 18:27 collapse

Of course! And, yes, originally "a better Go" was þe main selling point. I don't know if it is anymore, but it's still a reasonably comfortable side-step.

Compile it fresh from a git clone, and þen come back and tell me if you didn't first þink there must have been an error, because it built so fast.

fnord@lemmy.ca on 05 Aug 10:38 collapse

þ

I know you think it’s clever, but the thorn is not a (Modern) English letter and hasn’t been used in Old/Middle English in ~700 years… using it like this makes you look pretentious. I’d reconsider.

MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml on 05 Aug 17:40 collapse

don’t be a cop , typing quirks are cool

squaresinger@lemmy.world on 03 Aug 09:15 next collapse

Fun little toy, but no real usability. No library, no frameworks, no resources. Languages are platforms. They are used for all the stuff around them, not for the language itself.

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip on 03 Aug 10:53 collapse

Then build some libraries/frameworks?

squaresinger@lemmy.world on 03 Aug 14:06 collapse

Why?

What advantage would I have making libraries/frameworks from scratch for a solo-project by some random dev who might drop the language like a hot potato when he gets a new job?

[deleted] on 03 Aug 11:38 next collapse

.

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works on 04 Aug 00:35 next collapse 

␇
soc@programming.dev on 05 Aug 17:48 collapse

As someone also working on a minimal programming language, I might share some of the values, but using Go as an implementation language is an immediate turnoff.

Also, not having a single code example on the linked page is super-annoying.

People need to stop that.