What other languages interest you?

[swelham]

for rust! Though still get completely confused with lifetimes and the borrow system at times.

[maqbool]

I’m currently learning about Pharo(Smalltalk) modern and elm.

[jeramyRR]

I thought Rust has generics already.

[NobbZ]

Rust has generics but those are not comparable to c++ templates (which may look similar on a first glance). C++ templates are turing complete language on their own.

But at the end most usage boils down to something like generics or fancy macros.

[sztosz]

• I’m using Ruby for my living.
• Trying to force through Rust when I can in my company, but sadly I’m alone because there is other team doing every async backend job in Go I really am in love with rust, because It’s very low level, compared to Ruby, and I can read Rust and understand it And when it compiles, I mean if ever my code compiles It just works, no bugs other than simple logical ones.
• I like Elm for the same reason I like Rust, if it compiles it works, but there are problems with documentation and examples when it comes to doing something beside using core (I’m not proficient in Haskelly languages at all )
• I’ve started to read Real World Ocaml so I can start to write frontend in Bucklescript/ReasonML… instead of Elm, mostly due to @OvermindDL1 being very vocal about why it’s probably better choice than Elm, we’ll see how it works
• I’ve done some tutorial in Racket (it comes from Scheme which comes from Lisp), and liked it, have it on my bucket lisp, I mean list
• Same with Smallltalk, on my bucket list too
• Year and a half ago I’ve done most of my coding in Python, and would not mind switching from Ruby to Python as my main Income source. I think it’s the only language in which I’m able to write big piece of code that simply runs. Python simply clicks with me, and it always clicked, from the very beginning. Although I think I wrote only like few hundred lines in Python in past year I’m still very interested in it http://mypy-lang.org/ FTW!

I’ve also wrote some C, C++, Java, and C#, but to be honest they don’t really interest me. But if I was in need of writing GUI App these days, I’d go with C# I think, because this language grows in a good direction IMHO.

[OvermindDL1]

@jeramyRR

I thought Rust has generics already.

@NobbZ

Rust has generics but those are not comparable to c++ templates (which may look similar on a first glance). C++ templates are turing complete language on their own.

But at the end most usage boils down to something like generics or fancy macros.

/me does not understand why people think C++ templates are like generics, they are entirely two different things and although templates can do what generics can do, though far better, they can do significantly more as they are turing complete

Notice that, C++ Templates are Turing Complete, they are a full language built into the very type system of C++ itself that can do all manner of extremely useful code generation the likes of which Rust macro’s cannot get anywhere near yet, they are more akin to Lisp or Elixir Macro’s then they are anything remotely like generics.

@sztosz

I’ve started to read Real World Ocaml so I can start to write frontend in Bucklescript/ReasonML… instead of Elm, mostly due to @OvermindDL1 being very vocal about why it’s probably better choice than Elm, we’ll see how it works

Heh, the Elm language is, quite literally, just trying to be another HM language like OCaml and Haskall, but significantly less, so… better to take its idioms elsewhere. ^.^

[NobbZ]

@OvermindDL1

/me does not understand why people think C++ templates are like generics

Either I do read you wrong or you did me… I explicitely said, that C++ templates are superiour to Rust/Java generics. What I said though, is that I observed their usage often as a kind of generics in real world code.

[OvermindDL1]

@NobbZ

Either I do read you wrong or you did me… I explicitely said, that C++ templates are superiour to Rust/Java generics. What I said though, is that I observed their usage often as a kind of generics in real world code.

Oh I was primarily responding to @jeramyRR, I just added your quote as I was ‘extending’ yours, it was meant as in “I agree with NobbZ”.

[OmanF]

Not only “looks like”. Eta’s stated goal is to port GHC 7.10.3 (for the time being, though their site mentions GHC8) to the JVM world.

In that respect, you also have Frege (https://github.com/Frege/frege) which is another, older and more mature, port of Haskell to the JVM with the specified goal of making a Haskell-2010 standard compliant port.
(The difference is mainly in using packages from Hackage natively. Eta claims their implementation allows using those packages with only the minor tweaks required to make Haskell types JVM-compliant, while Frege’s implementation does not allow such usage out-of-the-box. Is it true? I don’t know, don’t understand the implementations and techs good enough to make an opininated claim).

[OmanF]

Though I’ve already replied once, taste change and my current interest lie with:

• Haskell (my favorite, yet also my nemsis, ever since my days hacking on Mathematica).
• Idris (If I only I had time to delve into it).
• Eta (Time, precious time)
• Frege
• Crystal (System’s programming with Ruby syntax?! “I’m the king of the world!”)
• Nim (System’s programming with Python syntax?! I’m the king of the world, squared!)
• Rust (Cool, but makes my head hurt. And I’m only on page 1 of the tutorial. :D)
• Elm
• PureScript
• BuckleScript/OCaml
• F# (And it’s lovely JS framework Fable).

But really, the one that really caugt my eye lately, and I hope to the invisible-pink-unicorn they’ll pull it off is:

• Luna (http://www.luna-lang.org/)

What I have time for, OTOH is some Elixir, little Haskell and a smudge of Bucklescript.
Such is life.

[grych]

Pony.

Statically typed, immutable, asynch methods, pattern matching with captures and guards. And highly readable!

[chouzar]

@OmanF

Though I’ve already replied once, taste change and my current interest lie with

Similarly, my interests have dabbled a bit from the past year.

Languages I really want to invest time on:

• elixir, erlang and OTP
• Idris

Take a look just for fun:

• Racket, Factor, Lua, Squeak/Smalltalk, Haskell

In my watchlist:

• Rust, Pony, Red, OCaml, lfe, Ceylon, Mercury, F*

[jswny]

I’m interested in the following:

1. Crystal – I love the syntax, and the focus on concurrency, but it’s just too new. However, OOP is just ingraned in my head and I can’t get it out so sometimes I struggle with Elixir. For me Phoenix is the killer Elixir app (love it or hate it), but Crystal doesn’t have that yet.
2. Rust – Deterministic GC seems really cool but in practice after a few days all I came out with is “wow this is impossible to understand, there’s no way that this is worth learning.” The docs seem killer though.
3. Pony – I actually love the Java type system besides a few quirks, and often find myself wishing for it in Elixir. I also love the BEAM!

[OvermindDL1]

@jswny

Crystal – I love the syntax, and the focus on concurrency, but it’s just too new. However, OOP is just ingraned in my head and I can’t get it out so sometimes I struggle with Elixir. For me Phoenix is the killer Elixir app (love it or hate it), but Crystal doesn’t have that yet.

Crystal is also not multi-core. It has a global lock currently so no matter the amount of threads it will only ever use one core until you spool up many processes.

[jswny]

Sure but I am pretty sure they are working on it over here on their GitHub. Like I said, it’s so new it’s not really much other than a novelty to me, but it’s a cool novelty to watch!

[dimitarvp]

@OvermindDL1

Crystal is also not multi-core. It has a global lock currently so no matter the amount of threads it will only ever use one core until you spool up many processes.

As OCaml then?

[OvermindDL1]

@jswny

Sure but I am pretty sure they are working on it over here on their GitHub . Like I said, it’s so new it’s not really much other than a novelty to me, but it’s a cool novelty to watch!

They are, I even talk with the devs in irc on occasion, currently multi-core support is not yet even being thought of to be worked on, just ‘something in the future’.

@dimitarvp

As OCaml then?

Exactly! Thus why I don’t use OCaml for servers yet. ^.^
Although, unlike Crystal, OCaml is working on removing it’s GIL-like lock and has PR’s being added quite routinely that fixup internals that rely on the GIL-like lock.

[dimitarvp]

@jswny

Crystal – I love the syntax, and the focus on concurrency, but it’s just too new. However, OOP is just ingraned in my head and I can’t get it out so sometimes I struggle with Elixir. For me Phoenix is the killer Elixir app (love it or hate it), but Crystal doesn’t have that yet.

That’s the important part. Languages don’t mean much by themselves. Elixir also has a few warts, but OTP and killer libraries are making it worth your while.

@jswny

Rust – Deterministic GC seems really cool but in practice after a few days all I came out with is “wow this is impossible to understand, there’s no way that this is worth learning.” The docs seem killer though.

It’s far from impossible and I am sure you know that. But I am with you, so far I don’t feel it’s worth the time and brain investment. IMO it’s too verbosive and already suffers from the problem of being able to do the same thing in several different ways. In that sense, and as much people hate it, Go is definitely better (if you have lots of patience in other areas though).

@jswny

Pony – I actually love the Java type system besides a few quirks, and often find myself wishing for it in Elixir. I also love the BEAM!

Pony makes an interesting promise: have an actor model concurrency like the BEAM but never copy data around. Combined with a much stricter compiler and a native binary output, it just sounds too good to be true. It’s too raw right now but I am keeping an eye on it. If they deliver even the first 3 points they’d have many other languages in a corner.

[dimitarvp]

@OvermindDL1

Although, unlike Crystal, OCaml is working on removing it’s GIL-like lock and has PR’s being added quite routinely that fixup internals that rely on the GIL-like lock.

To be fair, that might not be the best idea. History shows that if a tech has been made with the strong bias towards single-core, changing the underlying paradigmas and compromises is too much of an effort and usually the tech ends up in a much worse shape than it was before.

I’d much prefer to spawn OCaml Ports in Elixir that do specialized and high-performance single-core work than having a broken OCaml whose multi-core works, but not always.

(Let’s go chat in IRC though, we started hijacking the thread.)

[OvermindDL1]

@dimitarvp

IMO it’s too verbosive and already suffers from the problem of being able to do the same thing in several different ways. In that sense, and as much people hate it, Go is definitely better (if you have lots of patience in other areas though).

It is very verbose, it got that from Haskell (the part I complain about quite a bit), though I definitely wouldn’t say Go is better at all as Go doesn’t have the typing protections that Rust has (it barely has typing protections at all considering how often people do either runtime reflection or typeless Interface{} casting), in addition it has no higher typing abilities whatsoever (go ahead, try to make a custom TreeMap type that can handle any type from the primitive integers to any user defined type). Go is ‘useful’ for a very restricted style of programming, but it’s long-term maintainability is a little slice of hell from what I’ve been reading (it seems to be designed to let someone program quickly, but not program well, where Rust enforces you to program well, though not as quickly, very different domains).

@dimitarvp

To be fair, that might not be the best idea. History shows that if a tech has been made with the strong bias towards single-core, changing the underlying paradigmas and compromises is too much of an effort and usually the tech ends up in a much worse shape than it was before.

OCaml can actually do a good bit multi-core (it’s GIL is not ‘quite’ ubiquitous), similar style to Python except you can actually release the Gil in-language if you really need to and know what you are doing, you just have to be careful. The main reason OCaml has the GIL is the GC, practically no other code relies on it other than GC related memory handling.

@dimitarvp

I’d much prefer to spawn OCaml Ports in Elixir that do specialized and high-performance single-core work than having a broken OCaml whose multi-core works, but not always.

The MCOCaml branch is very much multi-core fully capable, so I’m not sure where this broken bit comes from? They are primarily just finishing refining the API and bringing it in piecemeal to mainline so it is easy to reason about by Core.

@dimitarvp

(Let’s go chat in IRC though, we started hijacking the thread.)

Eh, this is a language interest thread though, seems relevant. ^.^