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.
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.
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!
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.
"Lux is statically typed to reduce bugs and enhance performance"
Citation needed showing actual proof this is true and not just someone hating on dynamic typing.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
How hard is it to see that automatically detecting bugs at compile time is superior to running into them at random at runtime?
Citation needed showing actual proof this is true and not just someone hating on dynamic typing.
Just use your common sense. Let's take a simple statement:
a = b + c;
If b or c is floating-point type, the dynamic language interpreter will have to detect that at runtime (via an 'if' statement) before doing the actual floating point addition.
A compiled language will detect this at compile time, so at runtime, there is no need to check the types of b or c. It will simply run the floating point addition code, thus eliminating the two runtime type checks for b and c.
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.
The title is "Standards".
https://xkcd.com/927/
He doesn't need to say anything. It's already been thoroughly debunked and the only people repeating it are idiots who haven't gotten the word. The whole thing was a scam by a guy at 4chan. Once you actually look at the story it just falls apart on it's own. Even the NYT refused to print it.
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?
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.
Think of compiling as automatically generated unit tests. Do you feel better about it now?
Why should we care? Porn is ubiquitous, and you can see much kinkier stuff from your local web-pimp. Hop over to fetlife and you can find someone to do it with. If it's that he paid: again so what? Prostitution ts legal in (parts of) the US and Canada.
Oh the horror! Trump may have done something that I* do! But it's bad when he does it! (*Not saying you're into peeing hookers; likely your tastes would make Trump blush.)
But really, what does this have to do with Lux?
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!")))
This is all holograms anyways.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire