C3 is a new programming language designed as a modern alternative to C. It aims to be safer and easier to use while maintaining C's performance and low-level control. Key features include optional memory safety through compile-time checks and garbage collection, improved syntax and error messages, and built-in modularity. The project is actively under development and includes a self-hosting compiler written in C3. The goal is to provide a practical language for systems programming and other performance-sensitive domains while mitigating common C pitfalls.
This blog post explores upcasting in Rust using the Any trait. It demonstrates how to safely cast a trait object back to its original concrete type using Any::downcast_ref, highlighting that this is safe and efficient because it's only a type check, not a conversion. The author explains how this mechanism, combined with trait objects, facilitates runtime polymorphism while maintaining Rust's static type safety. The post concludes by suggesting that upcasting to Any, despite seemingly going against its intended direction, offers a practical solution for storing and retrieving different types within a homogenous collection, effectively simulating inheritance for operations like shared functionality invocation.
HN commenters largely discuss the complexity of Rust's Any trait and its upcasting mechanism. Several express that while powerful, it introduces significant cognitive overhead and can be difficult to grasp initially. The concept of fat pointers and vtables is mentioned as crucial to understanding Any's behavior. Some question the necessity of such complexity, suggesting simpler alternatives or improvements to the learning resources. One commenter contrasts Rust's approach with Go's interfaces, highlighting the trade-offs between performance and ease of use. The overall sentiment seems to be a mix of appreciation for the power of Any and a desire for more accessible explanations and potentially simpler solutions where applicable. A suggestion is made that improvements to the compiler's error messages could significantly enhance the developer experience when working with these features.
Koto is a modern, general-purpose programming language designed for ease of use and performance. It features a dynamically typed system with optional type hints, garbage collection, and built-in support for concurrency through asynchronous functions and channels. Koto emphasizes functional programming paradigms but also allows for imperative and object-oriented styles. Its syntax is concise and readable, drawing inspiration from languages like Python and Lua. Koto aims to be embeddable, with a small runtime and the ability to compile to bytecode or native machine code. It is actively developed and open-source, promoting community involvement and contributions.
Hacker News users discussed Koto's design choices, praising its speed, built-in concurrency support based on fibers, and error handling through optional values. Some compared it favorably to Lua, highlighting Koto's more modern approach. The creator of Koto engaged with commenters, clarifying details about the language's garbage collection, string interning, and future development plans, including potential WebAssembly support. Concerns were raised about its small community size and the practicality of using a niche language, while others expressed excitement about its potential as a scripting language or for game development. The discussion also touched on Koto's syntax and its borrow checker, with commenters offering suggestions and feedback.
MilliForth-6502 is a minimalist Forth implementation for the 6502 processor, designed to be incredibly small while remaining a practical programming language. It features a 1 KB dictionary, a 256-byte parameter stack, and implements core Forth words including arithmetic, logic, stack manipulation, and I/O. Despite its size, MilliForth allows for defining new words and includes a simple interactive interpreter. Its compactness makes it suitable for resource-constrained 6502 systems, and the project provides source code and documentation for building and using it.
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and minimalism of MilliForth, a Forth implementation for the 6502 processor. Some questioned its usefulness beyond educational purposes, citing limited memory and awkward programming style compared to assembly language. Others appreciated its cleverness and the challenge of creating such a compact system, viewing it as a testament to Forth's flexibility. Several comments highlighted the historical context of Forth on resource-constrained systems and drew parallels to other small language implementations. The maintainability of generated code and the debugging experience were also mentioned as potential drawbacks. A few commenters expressed interest in exploring MilliForth further and potentially using it for small embedded projects.
Xee is a new XPath and XSLT engine written in Rust, focusing on performance, security, and WebAssembly compatibility. It aims to be a modern alternative to existing engines, offering a safe and efficient way to process XML and HTML in various environments, including browsers and servers. Leveraging Rust's ownership model and memory safety features, Xee minimizes vulnerabilities like use-after-free errors and buffer overflows. Its WebAssembly support enables client-side XML processing without relying on JavaScript, potentially improving performance and security for web applications. While still under active development, Xee already supports a substantial portion of the XPath 3.1 and XSLT 3.0 specifications, with plans to implement streaming transformations and other advanced features in the future.
HN commenters generally praise Xee's speed and the author's approach to error handling. Several highlight the impressive performance benchmarks compared to libxml2, with some noting the potential for Xee to become a valuable tool in performance-sensitive XML processing scenarios. Others appreciate the clean API design and Rust's memory safety advantages. A few discuss the niche nature of XPath/XSLT in modern development, while some express interest in using Xee for specific tasks like web scraping and configuration parsing. The Rust implementation also sparked discussions about language choices for performance-critical applications. Several users inquire about WASM support, indicating potential interest in browser-based applications.
The Go blog post announces the deprecation of the go/types package's core types in favor of using standard Go types directly. This simplifies type checking and reflection by removing a separate type system representation, making code easier to understand and maintain. Instead of using types.Int, types.String, etc., developers should now use int, string, and other built-in types when working with the go/types package. This change improves the developer experience by streamlining interactions with types and aligning type checking more closely with the language itself. The blog post details how to migrate existing code to the new approach and emphasizes the benefits of this simplification for the Go ecosystem.
Hacker News commenters largely expressed relief and approval of Go's reversion from the proposed coretypes changes. Many felt the original proposal was overly complex and solved a problem most Go developers didn't have, while introducing potential performance issues and breaking changes. Some appreciated the experiment's insights into Go's type system, but ultimately agreed the added complexity wasn't worth the purported benefits. A few commenters lamented the wasted effort and questioned the decision-making process that led to the proposal in the first place, while others pointed out that exploring such ideas, even if ultimately abandoned, is a valuable part of language development. The prevailing sentiment was satisfaction with the return to the familiar and pragmatic approach that characterizes Go.
Jakt is a statically-typed, compiled programming language designed for performance and ease of use, with a focus on systems programming, game development, and GUI applications. Inspired by C++, Rust, and other modern languages, it features manual memory management, optional garbage collection, compile-time evaluation, and a friendly syntax. Developed alongside the SerenityOS operating system, Jakt aims to offer a robust and modern alternative for building performant and maintainable software while prioritizing developer productivity.
Hacker News users discuss Jakt's resemblance to C++, Rust, and Swift, noting its potential appeal to those familiar with these languages. Several commenters express interest in its development, praising its apparent simplicity and clean design, particularly the ownership model and memory management. Some skepticism arises about the long-term viability of another niche language, and concerns are voiced about potential performance limitations due to garbage collection. The cross-compilation ability for WebAssembly also generated interest, with users envisioning potential applications. A few commenters mention the project's active and welcoming community as a positive aspect. Overall, the comments indicate a cautious optimism towards Jakt, with many intrigued by its features but also mindful of the challenges facing a new programming language.
Autology is a Lisp dialect designed for self-modifying code and introspection. It exposes its own interpreter and data structures, allowing programs to analyze and manipulate their own source code, execution state, and even the interpreter itself during runtime. This capability enables dynamic code generation, on-the-fly modifications, and powerful metaprogramming techniques. It aims to provide a flexible environment for exploring novel programming paradigms and building self-aware, adaptive systems.
HN users generally expressed interest in Autology, a Lisp dialect with access to its own interpreter. Several commenters compared it favorably to Rebol in terms of metaprogramming capabilities. Some discussion focused on its potential use cases, including live coding and creating interactive development environments. Concerns were raised regarding its apparent early stage of development, the lack of documentation beyond the README, and the potential performance implications of its design. A few users questioned the practicality of such a language, while others were excited by the possibilities it presented for self-modifying code and advanced debugging tools. The reliance on Python for its implementation also sparked some debate.
Niri is a new programming language designed for building distributed systems. It aims to simplify concurrent and parallel programming by introducing the concept of "isolated objects" which communicate via explicit message passing, eliminating shared mutable state and thus avoiding data races and other concurrency bugs. This approach, coupled with automatic memory management and a focus on performance, makes Niri suitable for developing robust and efficient distributed applications, potentially replacing complex actor models or other concurrency paradigms. The language is still under development, but shows promise for streamlining the creation of complex distributed systems.
Hacker News users discussed Niri's potential, focusing on its novel approach to UI design. Several commenters expressed excitement about the demo, praising its speed and the innovative concept of manipulating data directly within the interface. Concerns were raised about the practicality of text-based interaction for complex tasks and the potential learning curve. Some questioned the long-term viability of relying solely on a keyboard-driven interface, while others saw it as a powerful tool for experienced users. The discussion also touched upon comparisons to other tools like spreadsheets and the potential benefits for specific use cases like data analysis and programming. Some users expressed skepticism, finding the current implementation limited and wanting to see more concrete examples of its capabilities.
This 1987 paper by Dybvig explores three distinct implementation models for Scheme: compilation to machine code, abstract machine interpretation, and direct interpretation of source code. It argues that while compilation offers the best performance for finished programs, the flexibility and debugging capabilities of interpreters are crucial for interactive development environments. The paper details the trade-offs between these models, emphasizing the advantages of a mixed approach that leverages both compilation and interpretation techniques. It concludes that an ideal Scheme system would utilize compilation for optimized execution and interpretation for interactive use, debugging, and dynamic code loading, hinting at a system where the boundaries between compiled and interpreted code are blurred.
HN commenters discuss the historical significance of the paper in establishing Scheme's minimalist design and portability. They highlight the cleverness of the three implementations, particularly the threaded code interpreter, and its influence on later languages like Lua. Some note the paper's accessibility and clarity, even for those unfamiliar with Scheme, while others reminisce about using the techniques described. A few comments delve into technical details like register allocation and garbage collection, comparing the approaches to modern techniques. The overall sentiment is one of appreciation for the paper's contribution to computer science and programming language design.
Gleam v1.9.0 introduces improved error messages, specifically around type errors involving records and incorrect argument counts. It also adds the gleam echo command, a helpful tool for debugging pipelines by printing values at different stages. Additionally, the release includes experimental support for Git integration, allowing Gleam to leverage Git information for dependency resolution and package management. This simplifies workflows and improves dependency management within projects, especially for local development and testing.
Hacker News users discussed the Gleam v1.9.0 release, largely focusing on its novel approach to error handling. Several commenters praised the explicit and exhaustive nature of error handling in Gleam, contrasting it favorably with Elixir's approach, which some found less strict. The discussion also touched upon the tradeoffs between Gleam's stricter error handling and potential verbosity, with some acknowledging the benefits while others expressed concerns about potential boilerplate. A few comments highlighted the language's growing maturity and ecosystem, while others inquired about specific features like concurrency and performance. One commenter appreciated the clear and concise changelog, a sentiment echoed by others who found the update informative and well-presented. The overall tone was positive, with many expressing interest in exploring Gleam further.
The author benchmarks Rust's performance in text compression, specifically comparing it to C++ using the LZ4 and Zstd algorithms. They find that Rust, while generally performant, struggles to match C++'s speed in these specific scenarios, particularly when dealing with smaller input sizes. This performance gap is attributed to Rust's stricter memory safety checks and its difficulty in replicating certain C++ optimization techniques, such as pointer aliasing and specialized allocators. The author concludes that while Rust is a strong choice for many domains, its current limitations make it less suitable for high-performance text compression codecs where matching C++'s speed remains a challenge. They also highlight that improvements in Rust's tooling and compiler may narrow this gap in the future.
HN users generally disagreed with the premise that Rust is inadequate for text compression. Several pointed out that the performance issues highlighted in the article are likely due to implementation details and algorithmic choices rather than limitations of the language itself. One commenter suggested that the author's focus on matching C++ performance exactly might be misplaced, and optimizing for Rust's idioms could yield better results. Others highlighted successful compression projects written in Rust, like zstd, as evidence against the author's claim. The most compelling comments centered on the idea that while Rust's abstractions might add overhead, they also bring safety and maintainability benefits that can outweigh performance concerns in many contexts. Some commenters suggested specific areas for optimization, such as using SIMD instructions or more efficient data structures.
"Effective Rust (2024)" aims to be a comprehensive guide for writing robust, idiomatic, and performant Rust code. It covers a wide range of topics, from foundational concepts like ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes, to advanced techniques involving concurrency, error handling, and asynchronous programming. The book emphasizes practical application and best practices, equipping readers with the knowledge to navigate common pitfalls and write production-ready software. It's designed to benefit both newcomers seeking a solid understanding of Rust's core principles and experienced developers looking to refine their skills and deepen their understanding of the language's nuances. The book will be structured around specific problems and their solutions, focusing on practical examples and actionable advice.
HN commenters generally praise "Effective Rust" as a valuable resource, particularly for those already familiar with Rust's basics. Several highlight its focus on practical advice and idioms, contrasting it favorably with the more theoretical "Rust for Rustaceans." Some suggest it bridges the gap between introductory and advanced resources, offering actionable guidance for writing idiomatic, production-ready code. A few comments mention specific chapters they found particularly helpful, such as those covering error handling and unsafe code. One commenter notes the importance of reading the book alongside the official Rust documentation. The free availability of the book online is also lauded.
The YouTube video "Microsoft is Getting Rusty" argues that Microsoft is increasingly adopting the Rust programming language due to its memory safety and performance benefits, particularly in areas where C++ has historically been problematic. The video highlights Microsoft's growing use of Rust in various projects like Azure and Windows, citing examples like rewriting core Windows components. It emphasizes that while C++ remains important, Rust is seen as a crucial tool for improving the security and reliability of Microsoft's software, and suggests this trend will likely continue as Rust matures and gains wider adoption within the company.
Hacker News users discussed Microsoft's increasing use of Rust, generally expressing optimism about its memory safety benefits and suitability for performance-sensitive systems programming. Some commenters noted Rust's steep learning curve, but acknowledged its potential to mitigate vulnerabilities prevalent in C/C++ codebases. Several users shared personal experiences with Rust, highlighting its positive impact on their projects. The discussion also touched upon the challenges of integrating Rust into existing projects and the importance of tooling and community support. A few comments expressed skepticism, questioning the long-term viability of Rust and its ability to fully replace C/C++. Overall, the comments reflect a cautious but positive outlook on Microsoft's adoption of Rust.
The author seeks a C-like language with modern features like generics, modules, and memory safety, while maintaining C's performance and close-to-the-metal nature. They desire a language suitable for systems programming, potentially as a replacement for C in performance-critical applications, but with the added benefits of contemporary language design. They are exploring if such a language already exists or whether retrofitting C would be a more viable approach. Essentially, they want the power and control of C without its inherent pitfalls and limitations.
The Hacker News comments discuss the practicality and potential benefits of a "retrofitted" C dialect, primarily focusing on memory safety. Some suggest exploring existing options like Zig, Rust, or Odin, which already address many of C's shortcomings. Others express skepticism about the feasibility of such a project, citing the complexity of C's ecosystem and the difficulty of maintaining compatibility while introducing significant changes. A few commenters propose specific improvements, such as optional garbage collection or stricter type checking, but acknowledge the challenges in implementation and adoption. There's a general agreement that memory safety is crucial, but opinions diverge on whether a new dialect or focusing on tooling and better practices within existing C is the best approach. Some also discuss the potential benefits for embedded systems, where C remains dominant.
Greg Kroah-Hartman's post argues that new drivers and kernel modules being written in Rust benefit the entire Linux kernel community. He emphasizes that Rust's memory safety features improve overall kernel stability and security, reducing potential bugs and vulnerabilities for everyone, even those not directly involved with Rust code. This advantage outweighs any perceived downsides like increased code complexity or a steeper learning curve for some developers. The improved safety and resulting stability ultimately reduces maintenance burden and allows developers to focus on new features instead of bug fixes, benefiting the entire ecosystem.
HN commenters largely agree with Greg KH's assessment of Rust's benefits for the kernel. Several highlight the improved memory safety and the potential for catching bugs early in the development process as significant advantages. Some express excitement about the prospect of new drivers and filesystems written in Rust, while others acknowledge the learning curve for kernel developers. A few commenters raise concerns, including the increased complexity of debugging Rust code in the kernel and the potential performance overhead. One commenter questions the long-term maintenance implications of introducing a new language, wondering if it might exacerbate the already challenging task of maintaining the kernel. Another suggests that the real win will be determined by whether Rust truly reduces the number of CVEs related to memory safety issues in the long run.
NESFab is a new, experimental programming language specifically designed for creating NES games. It aims to simplify NES development by providing a higher-level abstraction than assembly while still allowing fine-grained control over hardware. The language features a simplified syntax, built-in support for NES hardware features like sprites and scrolling, and a compiler that outputs optimized 6502 assembly code. NESFab also includes a suite of tools for building, running, and debugging games directly on original NES hardware or emulators. The project is actively being developed and welcomes community contributions.
HN users generally expressed excitement about NESFab, praising its simplicity and the ease with which it allows creation of NES ROMs. Several commenters drew comparisons to Pico-8, highlighting NESFab's similar approachable nature. Some discussed the limitations of the language, like its current lack of support for scrolling or metatiles, but acknowledged its early stage of development. Others appreciated the technical details shared about the compiler's implementation, including its use of Lua and assembly language. There was also interest in the potential for targeting other retro consoles. Overall, the comments reflected a positive reception to NESFab as a promising tool for aspiring NES game developers.
AdaCore has announced the winners of its "Ada/SPARK Crate of the Year 2024" competition. The gold award went to Libadalang-TV, a library providing a tree view for Libadalang, simplifying Ada and SPARK code analysis. Silver was awarded to Ada-Scintilla, a binding for the Scintilla editing component, enhancing Ada and SPARK development environments. Finally, Florist, a tool for static analysis of formal verification results, took home the bronze. These crates demonstrate community contributions to improving the Ada and SPARK ecosystem, providing valuable tools for development, analysis, and verification.
Hacker News users discussed the winning Ada/SPARK crates, expressing interest in Creatif's accessibility features for blind programmers and praising its maintainers' dedication. Some questioned the term "crate" in the Ada context, suggesting "package" or "library" as more fitting. A few comments highlighted Ada's strengths in safety-critical systems, contrasting its niche status with the broader popularity of Rust, while also acknowledging Rust's growing presence in similar domains. One commenter pondered the reasons behind Ada's limited adoption despite its technical merits.
The blog post argues that Carbon, while presented as a new language, is functionally more of a dialect or a sustained, large-scale fork of C++. It shares so much of C++'s syntax, semantics, and tooling that it blurs the line between a distinct language and a significantly evolved version of existing C++. This close relationship makes migration easier, but also raises questions about whether the benefits of a 'new' language outweigh the costs of maintaining another C++-like ecosystem, especially given ongoing modernization efforts within C++ itself. The author suggests that Carbon is less a revolution and more of a strategic response to the inertia surrounding large C++ codebases, offering a cleaner starting point while retaining substantial compatibility.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the author's premise that Carbon, despite Google's marketing, isn't yet a fully realized language. Several point out the lack of a stable ABI and the dependence on constantly evolving C++ tooling as major roadblocks. Some highlight the ambiguity around its governance model, questioning whether it will truly be community-driven or remain under Google's control. The most compelling comments delve into the practical implications of this, expressing skepticism about adopting a language with such a precarious foundation and predicting a long road ahead before Carbon reaches production readiness for substantial projects. Others counter that this is expected for a young language and that Carbon's potential merits are worth the wait, citing its modern features and interoperability with C++. A few commenters express disappointment or frustration with the slow pace of Carbon's development, contrasting it with other language projects.
Microsoft's blog post announces changes to their Go distribution starting with Go 1.24 to better align with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). While previous versions offered a partially FIPS-compliant mode, Go 1.24 introduces a fully compliant distribution built with the BoringCrypto module, ensuring all cryptographic operations adhere to FIPS 140-3. This change requires updating import paths for affected packages and may introduce minor breaking changes for some users. Microsoft provides guidance and tooling to help developers transition smoothly to the new FIPS-compliant distribution, encouraging adoption for enhanced security.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Microsoft's decision to ship a FIPS-compliant Go distribution. Some express concern about the potential for reduced performance and increased complexity due to the use of the BoringCrypto module. Others question the actual value of FIPS compliance, particularly in Go where the standard crypto library is already considered secure. There's discussion around the specific cryptographic primitives affected and whether the move is driven by government contract requirements. A few commenters appreciate Microsoft's contribution, seeing it as a positive step for Go's adoption in regulated environments. Some also speculate about the possibility of this change eventually becoming the default in Go's standard library.
Par is a new programming language designed for exploring and understanding concurrency. It features a built-in interactive playground that visualizes program execution, making it easier to grasp complex concurrent behavior. Par's syntax is inspired by Go, emphasizing simplicity and readability. The language utilizes goroutines and channels for concurrency, offering a practical way to learn and experiment with these concepts. While currently focused on concurrency education and experimentation, the project aims to eventually expand into a general-purpose language.
Hacker News users discussed Par's simplicity and suitability for teaching concurrency concepts. Several praised the interactive playground as a valuable tool for visualization and experimentation. Some questioned its practical applications beyond educational purposes, citing limitations compared to established languages like Go. The creator responded to some comments, clarifying design choices and acknowledging potential areas for improvement, such as error handling. There was also a brief discussion about the language's syntax and comparisons to other visual programming tools.
Apple is open-sourcing Swift Build, the build system used to create Swift itself and related projects. This move aims to improve build performance, enable more seamless integration with other build systems, and foster community involvement in its evolution. The open-sourcing effort will happen gradually, focusing initially on the build system's core components, including the build planning framework and the driver responsible for invoking build tools. Future plans include exploring alternative build executors and potentially supporting other languages beyond Swift. This change is expected to increase transparency, encourage broader adoption, and facilitate the development of new tools and integrations by the community.
HN commenters generally expressed cautious optimism about Apple open sourcing Swift Build. Some praised the potential for improved build times and cross-platform compatibility, particularly for non-Apple platforms. Several brought up concerns about how actively Apple will maintain the open-source project and whether it will truly benefit the wider community or primarily serve Apple's internal needs. Others questioned the long-term implications, wondering if this move signals Apple's eventual shift away from Xcode. A few commenters also discussed the technical details, comparing Swift Build to other build systems like Bazel and CMake, and speculating about potential integration challenges. Some highlighted the importance of community involvement for the project's success.
Tracebit, a system monitoring tool, is built with C# primarily due to its performance characteristics, especially with regards to garbage collection. While other languages like Go and Rust offer memory management advantages, C#'s generational garbage collector and allocation patterns align well with Tracebit's workload, which involves short-lived objects. This allows for efficient memory management without the complexities of manual control. Additionally, the mature .NET ecosystem, cross-platform compatibility offered by .NET, and the team's existing C# expertise contributed to the decision. Ultimately, C# provided a balance of performance, productivity, and platform support suitable for Tracebit's needs.
Hacker News users discussed the surprising choice of C# for Tracebit, a performance-sensitive tracing tool. Several commenters questioned the rationale, citing potential performance drawbacks compared to C/C++. The author defended the choice, highlighting C#'s developer productivity, rich ecosystem (especially concerning UI development), and the performance benefits of using native libraries for the performance-critical parts. Some users agreed, pointing out the maturity of the .NET ecosystem and the relative ease of finding C# developers. Others remained skeptical, emphasizing the overhead of the .NET runtime and garbage collection. The discussion also touched upon cross-platform compatibility, with commenters acknowledging .NET's improvements in this area but still noting some limitations, particularly regarding native dependencies. A few users shared their positive experiences with C# in performance-sensitive contexts, further fueling the debate.
This paper chronicles the adoption and adaptation of APL in the Soviet Union up to 1991. Initially hampered by hardware limitations and the lack of official support, APL gained a foothold through enthusiastic individuals who saw its potential for scientific computing and education. The development of Soviet APL interpreters, notably on ES EVM mainframes and personal computers like the Iskra-226, fostered a growing user community. Despite challenges like Cyrillic character adaptation and limited access to Western resources, Soviet APL users formed active groups, organized conferences, and developed specialized applications in various fields, demonstrating a distinct and resilient APL subculture. The arrival of perestroika further facilitated collaboration and exchange with the international APL community.
HN commenters discuss the fascinating history of APL's adoption and adaptation within the Soviet Union, highlighting the ingenuity required to implement it on limited hardware. Several share personal anecdotes about using APL on Soviet computers, recalling its unique characteristics and the challenges of working with its specialized keyboard. Some commenters delve into the technical details of Soviet hardware limitations and the creative solutions employed to overcome them, including modifying character sets and developing custom input methods. The discussion also touches on the broader context of computing in the USSR, with mentions of other languages and the impact of restricted access to Western technology. A few commenters express interest in learning more about the specific dialects of APL developed in the Soviet Union and the influence of these adaptations on later versions of the language.
Hedy is a gradual programming language designed to make coding accessible to beginners. It introduces programming concepts incrementally, starting with a simplified version of the language and progressively unlocking more advanced features as the user progresses through lessons. This scaffolded approach aims to reduce the initial cognitive load and make learning to code less daunting. Hedy uses clear, concise syntax and provides helpful error messages to guide learners. It's available as a web-based editor and is open-source, allowing for community contributions and adaptations. The project aims to bridge the gap between block-based visual programming and traditional text-based coding.
Hacker News users discussed Hedy's approach to teaching programming, generally praising its gradual introduction of complexity. Several commenters compared it to Logo, highlighting the similarities in using a simplified environment to build foundational concepts. Some expressed skepticism about its long-term effectiveness, questioning whether the simplified syntax would hinder the transition to "real" programming languages. Others raised concerns about the target audience, wondering if the constrained environment might be too limiting for more advanced learners. The creator of Hedy also participated, responding to questions and clarifying the design choices behind the language. There was a thread discussing the importance of visual feedback and how Hedy could potentially incorporate it, along with suggestions for expanding the language's capabilities in the future.
The blog post argues that C's insistence on abstracting away hardware details makes it poorly suited for effectively leveraging SIMD instructions. While extensions like intrinsics exist, they're cumbersome, non-portable, and break C's abstraction model. The author contends that higher-level languages, potentially with compiler support for automatic vectorization, or even assembly language for critical sections, would be more appropriate for SIMD programming due to the inherent need for data layout awareness and explicit control over vector operations. Essentially, C's strengths become weaknesses when dealing with SIMD, hindering performance and programmer productivity.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of using SIMD effectively in C. Several commenters agreed with the author's point about the difficulty of expressing SIMD operations elegantly in C and how it often leads to unmaintainable code. Some suggested alternative approaches, like using higher-level languages or libraries that provide better abstractions, such as ISPC. Others pointed out the importance of compiler optimizations and using intrinsics effectively to achieve optimal performance. One compelling comment highlighted that the issue isn't inherent to C itself, but rather the lack of suitable standard library support, suggesting that future additions to the standard library could mitigate these problems. Another commenter offered a counterpoint, arguing that C's low-level nature is exactly why it's suitable for SIMD, giving programmers fine-grained control over hardware resources.
This proposal introduces an effect system to C2x, aiming to enhance code modularity, optimization, and correctness by explicitly declaring and checking the side effects of functions. It defines a set of effect keywords, like reads and writes, to annotate function parameters and return values, indicating how they are accessed. These annotations are part of the function's type and are checked by the compiler, ensuring that declared effects match the function's actual behavior. The proposal also includes a mechanism for polymorphism over effects, enabling more flexible code reuse and separate compilation without sacrificing effect safety. This mechanism allows for abstracting over effects, so that functions can be written generically to operate on data structures with varying levels of mutability.
The Hacker News comments on the C2y effect system proposal express a mix of skepticism and cautious interest. Several commenters question the practicality and performance implications of implementing such a system in C, citing the language's existing complexity and the potential for significant overhead. Concerns are raised about the learning curve for developers and the possibility of introducing subtle bugs. Some find the proposal intriguing from a research perspective but doubt its widespread adoption. A few express interest in exploring the potential benefits of improved code analysis and error detection, particularly for concurrency and memory management, though acknowledge the challenges involved. Overall, the consensus leans towards viewing the proposal as an interesting academic exercise with limited real-world applicability in its current form.
Dusa is a logic programming language based on finite-choice logic, designed for declarative problem solving and knowledge representation. It emphasizes simplicity and approachability, with a Python-inspired syntax and built-in support for common data structures like lists and dictionaries. Dusa programs define relationships between facts and rules, allowing users to describe problems and let the system find solutions. Its core features include backtracking search, constraint satisfaction, and a type system based on logical propositions. Dusa aims to be both a practical tool for everyday programming tasks and a platform for exploring advanced logic programming concepts.
Hacker News users discussed Dusa's novel approach to programming with finite-choice logic, expressing interest in its potential for formal verification and constraint solving. Some questioned its practicality and performance compared to established Prolog implementations, while others highlighted the benefits of its clear semantics and type system. Several commenters drew parallels to miniKanren, another logic programming language, and discussed the trade-offs between Dusa's finite-domain focus and the more general approach of Prolog. The static typing and potential for compile-time optimization were seen as significant advantages. There was also a discussion about the suitability of Dusa for specific domains like game AI and puzzle solving. Some expressed skepticism about the claim of "blazing fast performance," desiring benchmarks to validate it. Overall, the comments reflected a mixture of curiosity, cautious optimism, and a desire for more information, particularly regarding real-world applications and performance comparisons.
Rhai is a fast and lightweight scripting language specifically designed for embedding within Rust applications. It boasts a simple, easy-to-learn syntax inspired by JavaScript and Rust, making it accessible for both developers and end-users. Rhai prioritizes performance and safety, leveraging Rust's ownership and borrowing system to prevent data races and other memory-related issues. It offers seamless integration with Rust, allowing direct access to Rust functions and data structures, and supports dynamic typing, custom functions, modules, and even asynchronous operations. Its versatility makes it suitable for a wide range of use cases, from game scripting and configuration to data processing and rapid prototyping.
HN commenters generally praised Rhai for its speed, ease of embedding, and Rust integration. Several users compared it favorably to Lua, citing better performance and a more "Rusty" feel. Some appreciated its dynamic typing and scripting-oriented nature, while others suggested potential improvements like static typing or a WASM target. The discussion touched on use cases like game scripting, configuration, and embedded systems, highlighting Rhai's versatility. A few users expressed interest in contributing to the project. Concerns raised included the potential performance impact of dynamic typing and the relatively small community size compared to more established scripting languages.
Zyme is a new programming language designed for evolvability. It features a simple, homoiconic syntax and a small core language, making it easy to modify and extend. The language is designed to be used for genetic programming and other evolutionary computation techniques, allowing programs to be mutated and crossed over to generate new, potentially improved versions. Zyme is implemented in Rust and currently offers basic arithmetic, list manipulation, and conditional logic. It aims to provide a platform for exploring new ideas in program evolution and to facilitate the creation of self-modifying and adaptable software.
HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Zyme's practical applications. Several questioned the evolutionary approach's efficiency compared to traditional programming paradigms, particularly for complex tasks. Some doubted the ability of evolution to produce readable and maintainable code. Others pointed out the challenges in defining fitness functions and controlling the evolutionary process. A few commenters expressed interest in the project's potential, particularly for tasks where traditional approaches struggle, such as program synthesis or automatic bug fixing. However, the overall sentiment leaned towards cautious curiosity rather than enthusiastic endorsement, with many calling for more concrete examples and comparisons to established techniques.
Summary of Comments ( 98 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43569724
HN users discuss C3's goals and features, expressing both interest and skepticism. Several question the need for another C-like language, especially given the continued development of C and C++. Some appreciate the focus on safety and preventing common C errors, while others find the changes too drastic a departure from C's philosophy. There's debate about the practicality of automatic memory management in systems programming, and some concern over the runtime overhead it might introduce. The project's early stage is noted, and some express reservations about its long-term viability and community adoption. Others are more optimistic, praising the clear documentation and expressing interest in following its progress. The use of Python for the compiler is also a point of discussion.
The Hacker News post about the C3 programming language generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters expressing interest and raising relevant points. Several threads of conversation emerged around the language's features and goals.
One prominent thread discussed C3's approach to memory management. Some users questioned the decision to retain manual memory management, a common source of bugs in C, while others defended it as crucial for performance and control. The discussion explored various aspects of manual memory management, including its complexity, its benefits in certain contexts, and the potential for memory leaks. Some commenters suggested alternative approaches, such as incorporating features like borrow checking from Rust or offering optional garbage collection.
Another significant thread focused on C3's compatibility with existing C code. Some users emphasized the importance of seamless interoperability, allowing developers to gradually integrate C3 into existing projects, while others highlighted the challenges of achieving full compatibility while also introducing new language features. There was some discussion about the level of compatibility C3 aimed for and the practical implications for migration and code reuse.
The language's syntax and overall design also drew comments. Some users appreciated the efforts to modernize C while preserving its familiar feel, while others expressed skepticism about the necessity of a new language or suggested improvements to specific language constructs. There was discussion comparing C3's syntax to other languages like Go and Rust, and some commenters offered specific suggestions for improving readability or reducing boilerplate.
Several commenters also touched on the development status and community around C3. Some inquired about the language's maturity, tooling, and documentation, while others expressed interest in contributing to the project. The topic of community building and the importance of attracting developers and users was briefly discussed.
In addition to these broader themes, there were individual comments raising more specific points, such as questions about the language's performance characteristics, its target use cases, and the rationale behind certain design choices. Some commenters provided links to related projects or resources, and others shared their personal experiences with similar languages or tools.