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.

Comments

sorry

[ooloorie]

first targeted the Java Virtual Machine, but will be a universal, cross-platform language

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.

Re:sorry

[ooloorie]

Wow, what a *ton* of bullshit here. Honestly you should be proud - it's not so easy to be so completely wrong.

By all means, feel free to show any significant language that has managed to make the leap from the JVM to other platforms.

The most interesting and successful new languages on the JVM, Scala and Clojure, have tried for years to create non-JVM backends and failed to deliver anything other than toys.

We love functional languages except using them.

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Oh hell no

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

[W]hereas Clojure is dynamically typed, as many Lisp-like languages have been, Lux is statically typed to reduce bugs and enhance performance

"Kill it, kill it! Burn it with fire! Stop it before it breaches quarantine!"

Shoot it with silver bullets, drive a wooden stake through its heart, burn the body, sprinkle the ashes with salt and holy water, seal the ashes into an iron urn covered with runes, weld it shut and bury it at a crossroads under the full moon. Then dust off and nuke the site from orbit. Even after that, I'm going to have a hard time falling asleep.