Slashdot Mirror
Meet Lux, A New Lisp-like Language (javaworld.com)
Drawing on Haskell, Clojure, and ML, the new Lux language first targeted the Java Virtual Machine, but will be a universal, cross-platform language. An anonymous reader quotes JavaWorld:
Currently in an 0.5 beta release, Lux claims that while it implements features common to Lisp-like languages, such as macros, they're more flexible and powerful in Lux... [W]hereas Clojure is dynamically typed, as many Lisp-like languages have been, Lux is statically typed to reduce bugs and enhance performance. Lux also lets programmers create new types programmatically, which provides some of the flexibility found in dynamically typed languages. The functional language Haskell has type classes, but Lux is intended to be less constraining. Getting around any constraints can be done natively to the language, not via hacks in the type system.
There's a a 16-chapter book about the language on GitHub.
There's a a 16-chapter book about the language on GitHub.
So are we just going to pretend Donald Trump didn't pay hookers to pee on each other in a Moscow hotel room?
We don't need another "bad ML in Lisp's clothes" language.
Could it be... SATAN ?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
... yet another programming language. Next, please work on a new HDMI standard, another E-car charging plug and why not invent another lens-mount for cameras, while you're at it? :-)
Is Scheme actually used for projects outside of college CS classrooms?
IIRC Scheme was positioned as the "lightweight Common Lisp" (in the sense of LDAP being Lightweight X.500) back in the '90s.
This may be nice for Java developers, but I can't think of any significant language that started off targeting the JVM and then successfully moved to another platform. That's because languages targeting the JVM get bogged down by the limitations of the JVM and the get entangled in the Java libraries.
If you want to develop a new language these days, start by targeting the LLVM.
Yup, a one way world of doing things. That's why penises and vaginas only operate one way.
Functional Languages are really cool in theory. However I find that for Real World development. Your code is often too tight for proper maintenance. Where Procedural and OOP is much better at fixing issues.
While yes *you* are the greatest developer in the world, and can write code better than everyone else in the world. It doesn't stop the people who pays your bills from giving you bad specifications, or come across problems that were not thought of before.
In my decades of experience, I have found to be nimble you need to keep humble and figure that your code will not end up like it was planned, so you need to put in hooks for expansion and think on solving issues that are not asked for. As well assuming that they may be some data that could cause your code to break and you will need to fix it quickly.
Functional Languages often become a bit too dense to fix. And god help you if you want to unload that project to someone else so you can work on something more interesting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
My "(" and ")" keys haven't got enough wear on them. This will help level out the wear pattern on my keyboard. Thanks!
Explicit typing wonks up the flow with cruft. Set constraints over types. Stick with Clojure and Elixir for great good.
Otherwise it looks interesting. However, I'd rather wish to see a new strongly-typed cross-platform language with garbage collector, very strict compile-time optimization (not dynamic at all), a built-in GUI toolkit and implicit block syntax.
Here is some small http://taktentus.herokuapp.com/
No more C++ and all those silly libraries, no more Python and the way too convenient coding there and its crazy tie-ins with stats and ML libraries. I want something that is poorly documented, celebrated only in a small academic circle, and makes me do everything from scratch and have little access to the underlying OS.
Screw productivity and ever finishing a damn thing.
Gee. Another language for the sake of creating a programming langauge.
And claiming it is wonderful.
Impressively worthless/idiotic.
But wait, there is more! It is an improvement on ! What a load of useless drivel.
Actual systems have state and access to limited physical systems (hard drives, USB keys, etc). "Pure" functional language weenies are utterly clueless.
The title is "Standards".
https://xkcd.com/927/
They may have done a really bad job with marketing, but Scala.js is considered production ready and more than a toy.
Scala Native, the first official effort to get Scala compiling via LLVM, is less than a year and a half old.
What is this new language good for?
First there was Pascal, which got a moderate following outside universities. Then came Modula, which nobody used because it was too strongly typed. Then there was a massive branching of language paradigms (object-driven, object-orientated, lists & sets, functional) which slowly moved over to business use. Then there was Haskell, which has a small following outside universities. A big problem with a new language is finding people to use it and share a code-base.
Recently Apple and Google created their own languages and used their global position to promote them. Another language means another library to learn, another compiler to install, and many times, also another development environment to install and learn. (Eclipse is removing some of that burden but it has a steep learning curve.) When a new language was a rarity, it was easy to crowd-source developers for it. Now there's a new language every month, there aren't sufficient developers available to make it popular.
That's what we sorely need - yet another silly language, so that its author can inflict his or her personal tastes on the rest of us. If anything is missing in the computing world, that is languages. While you are at it, throw in another development methodology - Agile is beginning to look old and tired, and a new fad is needed.
Before I judge Lux, I'm waiting for the Lux#.net implementation.
Is gwt able to compile Lux into Javascript?
One big advantage of the Lisp syntax is that it allows editing code at higher abstraction level in a uniform way. In Emacs one can use paredit mode to directly manipulate the structure of a Lisp program by splitting, joining, and moving s-expressions instead of editing code as a sequence of lines of text like it is done with most other programming languages.
Clojure’s syntax is not an improvement but a step backward as it undermines this advantage by not syntactically grouping everything that is grouped semantically (e. g. binding pairs in let) just to use fewer parentheses. And very unfortunately new Clojure-inspired Lisp dialects (like Lux) appear to inherit this syntactical deficiency.
One of the nice things about lisp is that it is so clean. Lux appears verbose and cluttered with odd symbols.
Lisp:
(defun hello ()
"Hello, world!"
)
Lux:
(;module: {#;doc "This will be our program's main module."}
lux
(lux (codata io)
[cli #+ program:]))
(program: args
(io (log! "Hello, world!")))