The author details the creation of their own programming language, "Oxcart," driven by dissatisfaction with existing tools for personal projects. Oxcart prioritizes simplicity and explicitness over complex features, aiming for ease of understanding and modification. Key features include a minimal syntax inspired by Lisp, straightforward memory management using a linear allocator and garbage collection, and a compilation process that produces C code for portability. The language is designed specifically for the author's own use case – writing small, self-contained programs – and therefore sacrifices performance and common features for the sake of personal productivity and enjoyment.
Ruby 3.5 introduces a new feature to address the "namespace pollution" problem caused by global constants. Currently, referencing an undefined constant triggers an autoload, potentially loading unwanted code or creating unexpected dependencies. The proposed solution allows defining a namespace for constant lookup on a per-file basis, using a comment like # frozen_string_literal: true, scope: Foo. This restricts the search for unqualified constants within the Foo namespace, preventing unintended autoloads and improving code isolation. If a constant isn't found within the specified namespace, a NameError will be raised, giving developers more control and predictability over constant resolution. This change promotes better code organization, reduces unwanted side effects, and enhances the robustness of Ruby applications.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of Ruby 3.5's proposed namespace on read feature, primarily focusing on the potential confusion and complexity it introduces. Some argue that the feature addresses a niche problem and might not be worth the added cognitive overhead for developers. Others suggest alternative solutions, like using symbols or dedicated data structures, rather than relying on this implicit behavior. The potential for subtle bugs arising from unintended namespace clashes is also a concern. Several commenters express skepticism about the feature's overall value and whether it significantly improves Ruby's usability. Some even question the motivation behind its inclusion. There's a general sentiment that the proposal lacks clear justification and adds complexity without addressing a widespread issue.
The author argues that programming languages should include a built-in tree traversal primitive, similar to how many languages handle array iteration. They contend that manually implementing tree traversal, especially recursive approaches, is verbose, error-prone, and less efficient than a dedicated language feature. A tree traversal primitive, abstracting the traversal logic, would simplify code, improve readability, and potentially enable compiler optimizations for various traversal strategies (depth-first, breadth-first, etc.). This would be particularly beneficial for tasks like code analysis, game AI, and scene graph processing, where tree structures are prevalent.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's premise that a tree traversal primitive would be useful. Several commenters highlighted existing implementations of similar ideas in various languages and libraries, including Clojure's clojure.zip and Python's itertools. Some debated the best way to implement such a primitive, considering performance and flexibility trade-offs. Others discussed the challenges of standardizing a tree traversal primitive given the diversity of tree structures used in programming. A few commenters pointed out that while helpful, a dedicated primitive might not be strictly necessary, as existing functional programming paradigms can achieve similar results. One commenter suggested that the real problem is the lack of standardized tree data structures, making a generalized traversal primitive difficult to design.
This 1990 paper by Sriyatha offers a computational linguistic approach to understanding the complex roles of Greek particles like μέν, δέ, γάρ, and οὖν. It argues against treating them as simply discourse markers and instead proposes a framework based on "coherence relations" between segments of text. The paper suggests these particles signal specific relationships, such as elaboration, justification, or contrast, aiding in the interpretation of how different parts of a text relate to each other. This framework allows for computational analysis of these relationships, moving beyond a simple grammatical description towards a more nuanced understanding of how particles contribute to the overall meaning and coherence of Greek texts.
HN users discuss the complexity and nuance of ancient Greek particles, praising the linked article for its clarity and insight. Several commenters share anecdotes about their struggles learning Greek, highlighting the difficulty of mastering these seemingly small words. The discussion also touches on the challenges of translation, the limitations of relying solely on dictionaries, and the importance of understanding the underlying logic and rhetoric of the language. Some users express renewed interest in revisiting their Greek studies, inspired by the article's approachable explanation of a complex topic. One commenter points out the connection between Greek particles and similar structures in other languages, particularly Indian languages, suggesting a shared Indo-European origin for these grammatical features.
Python 3.12 introduces "t-strings," a new string literal type designed for templating. Prepending a string with t (e.g., t"Hello {name}") signifies a t-string, which supports delayed interpolation and formatting. Unlike f-strings, t-strings don't immediately evaluate expressions within braces. Instead, they create a reusable template that can be formatted later using the .format() method. This allows for constructing templates separately from their data, improving code organization and enabling scenarios like dynamic template creation or translation. T-strings also offer enhanced control over formatting via format specifiers within the braces, similar to existing str.format() functionality. While sharing some similarities with f-strings, t-strings prioritize reusability and deferred evaluation, providing a powerful alternative for template-based string construction.
Hacker News users generally expressed enthusiasm for Python's proposed t-strings (trimmed strings), viewing them as a valuable addition for template literals and multiline strings. Several commenters highlighted the potential for improved readability and maintainability, especially when dealing with SQL queries or HTML. Some discussed the syntax, suggesting alternatives and pondering potential edge cases and implementation details, like handling backslashes. A few pointed out the existing workarounds available and questioned whether this feature warranted inclusion in the core language, given the learning curve it might introduce for new users. There was also some discussion comparing t-strings to similar features in other languages, like C#'s verbatim strings and JavaScript's template literals.
Python decorators, often perceived as complex, are simply functions that wrap other functions, modifying their behavior. A decorator takes a function as input, defines an inner function that usually extends the original function's functionality, and returns this inner function. This allows adding common logic like logging, timing, or access control around a function without altering its core code. Decorators achieve this by replacing the original function with the decorated version, effectively making the added functionality transparent to the caller. Using the @ syntax is just syntactic sugar for calling the decorator function with the target function as an argument.
HN users generally found the article to be a good, clear explanation of Python decorators, particularly for beginners. Several commenters praised its simple, step-by-step approach and practical examples. Some suggested additional points for clarity, like emphasizing that decorators are just syntactic sugar for function wrapping, and explicitly showing the equivalence between using the @ syntax and the manual function wrapping approach. One commenter noted the article's helpfulness in understanding the functools.wraps decorator for preserving metadata. There was a brief discussion about the practicality of highly complex decorators, with some arguing they can become obfuscated and hard to debug.
While often derided for its verbosity and perceived outdatedness, Objective-C possesses a unique charm for some developers. Its Smalltalk-inspired message-passing paradigm, dynamic nature, and human-readable syntax foster a sense of playfulness and expressiveness that can be missing in more rigid languages. This article argues that Objective-C's idiosyncrasies, including its use of square brackets and descriptive method names, contribute to a more approachable and understandable coding experience, particularly for those coming from a less technical background. Despite its decline in popularity since Swift's arrival, Objective-C's enduring legacy and distinct character continue to resonate with a dedicated community who appreciate its subjective appeal.
HN commenters largely agree that Objective-C's verbosity, while initially appearing cumbersome, contributes to its readability and maintainability. Several users appreciate the explicit nature of message passing and how it clarifies code intention. Some argue that modern Objective-C, with features like literals and blocks, addresses many of the verbosity complaints. The dynamic nature of the language and the power of its runtime are also highlighted as benefits. A few commenters express nostalgia for Objective-C, contrasting it with Swift, which they perceive as less enjoyable or flexible, despite its modern syntax. There's also a discussion around the challenges of learning Objective-C and the impact of Apple's transition to Swift.
Guy Steele's "Growing a Language" advocates for designing programming languages with extensibility in mind, enabling them to evolve gracefully over time. He argues against striving for a "perfect" initial design, instead favoring a core language with powerful mechanisms for growth, akin to biological evolution. These mechanisms include higher-order functions, allowing users to effectively extend the language themselves, and a flexible syntax capable of accommodating new constructs. Steele emphasizes the importance of "bottom-up" growth, where new features emerge from practical usage and are integrated into the language organically, rather than being imposed top-down by designers. This allows the language to adapt to unforeseen needs and remain relevant as the programming landscape changes.
Hacker News users discuss Guy Steele's "Growing a Language" lecture, focusing on its relevance even decades later. Several commenters praise Steele's insights into language design, particularly his emphasis on evolving languages organically rather than rigidly adhering to initial specifications. The concept of "worse is better" is highlighted, along with a discussion of how seemingly inferior initial designs can sometimes win out due to their adaptability and ease of implementation. The challenge of backward compatibility in evolving languages is also a key theme, with commenters noting the tension between maintaining existing code and incorporating new features. Steele's humor and engaging presentation style are also appreciated. One commenter links to a video of the lecture, while others lament that more modern programming languages haven't fully embraced the principles Steele advocates.
The "Norway problem" in YAML highlights the surprising and often problematic implicit typing system. Specifically, the string "NO" is automatically interpreted as the boolean value false, leading to unexpected behavior when trying to represent the country code for Norway. This illustrates a broader issue with YAML's automatic type coercion, where seemingly innocuous strings can be misinterpreted as booleans, dates, or numbers, causing silent errors and difficult-to-debug issues. The article recommends explicitly quoting strings, particularly country codes, and suggests adopting stricter YAML parsers or linters to catch these potential pitfalls early on. Ultimately, the "Norway problem" serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of YAML's implicit typing and encourages developers to be more deliberate about their data representation.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's point about YAML's complexity, particularly regarding its surprising behaviors around type coercion and implicit typing. Several users share anecdotes of YAML-induced headaches, highlighting issues with boolean and numeric interpretation. Some suggest alternative data serialization formats like TOML or JSON as simpler and less error-prone options, emphasizing the importance of predictability in configuration files. A few comments delve into the nuances of YAML's specification and its suitability for different use cases, arguing it's powerful but requires careful understanding. Others mention tooling as a potential mitigating factor, suggesting linters and schema validators can help prevent common YAML pitfalls.
The blog post "Elliptical Python Programming" explores techniques for writing concise and expressive Python code by leveraging language features that allow for implicit or "elliptical" constructs. It covers topics like using truthiness to simplify conditional expressions, exploiting operator chaining and short-circuiting, leveraging iterable unpacking and the * operator for sequence manipulation, and understanding how default dictionary values can streamline code. The author emphasizes the importance of readability and maintainability, advocating for elliptical constructions only when they enhance clarity and reduce verbosity without sacrificing comprehension. The goal is to write Pythonic code that is both elegant and efficient.
HN commenters largely discussed the practicality and readability of the "elliptical" Python style advocated in the article. Some praised the conciseness, particularly for smaller scripts or personal projects, while others raised concerns about maintainability and introducing subtle bugs, especially in larger codebases. A few pointed out that some examples weren't truly elliptical but rather just standard Python idioms taken to an extreme. The potential for abuse and the importance of clear communication in code were recurring themes. Some commenters also suggested that languages like Perl are better suited for this extremely terse coding style. Several people debated the validity and usefulness of the specific code examples provided.
Research suggests bonobos can combine calls in a structured way previously believed unique to humans. Scientists observed that bonobos use two distinct calls – "peep" and "grunt" – individually and in combination ("peep-grunt"). Crucially, they found that the combined call conveyed a different meaning than either call alone, specifically related to starting play. This suggests bonobos aren't simply stringing together calls, but are combining them syntactically, creating a new meaning from existing vocalizations, which has significant implications for our understanding of language evolution.
HN users discuss the New Scientist article about bonobo communication, expressing skepticism about the claim of "unique to humans" syntax. Several point out that other animals, particularly birds, have demonstrated complex vocalizations with potential syntactic structure. Some question the rigor of the study and suggest the observed bonobo vocalizations might be explained by simpler mechanisms than syntax. Others highlight the difficulty of definitively proving syntax in non-human animals, and the potential for anthropomorphic interpretations of animal communication. There's also debate about the definition of "syntax" itself and whether the bonobo vocalizations meet the criteria. A few commenters express excitement about the research and the implications for understanding language evolution.
This post explores a shift in thinking about programming languages from individual entities to sets or families of languages. Instead of focusing on a single language's specific features, the author advocates for considering the shared characteristics and relationships between languages within a broader group. This approach involves recognizing core concepts and abstractions that transcend individual syntax, allowing for easier transfer of knowledge and the development of tools that can operate across multiple languages within a set. The author uses examples like the ML language family and the Lisp dialects to illustrate how shared underlying principles can unify seemingly disparate languages, leading to a more powerful and adaptable approach to programming.
The Hacker News comments discuss the concept of "language sets" introduced in the linked gist. Several commenters express skepticism about the practical value and novelty of the idea, questioning whether it genuinely offers advantages over existing programming paradigms like macros, polymorphism, or code generation. Some find the examples unconvincing and overly complex, suggesting simpler solutions could achieve the same results. Others point out potential performance implications and the added cognitive load of managing language sets. However, a few commenters express interest, seeing potential applications in areas like DSL design and metaprogramming, though they also acknowledge the need for further development and clearer examples to demonstrate its usefulness. Overall, the reception is mixed, with many unconvinced but a few intrigued by the possibilities.
Hillel Wayne presents a seemingly straightforward JavaScript code snippet involving a variable assignment within a conditional statement containing a regular expression match. The unexpected behavior arises from how JavaScript's RegExp object handles global flags. Because the global flag is enabled, subsequent calls to test() within the same regex object continue matching from the previous match's position. This leads to the conditional evaluating differently on subsequent runs, resulting in the variable assignment only happening once even though the conditional appears to be true multiple times. Effectively, the regex remembers its position between calls, causing confusion for those expecting each call to test() to start from the beginning of the string. The post highlights the subtle yet crucial difference between using a regex literal each time versus using a regex object, which retains state.
Hacker News users discuss various aspects of the perplexing JavaScript parsing puzzle. Several commenters analyze the specific grammar rules and automatic semicolon insertion (ASI) behavior that lead to the unexpected result, highlighting the complexities of JavaScript's parsing logic. Some point out that the ++ operator binds more tightly than the optional chaining operator (?.), explaining why the increment applies to the property access result rather than the object itself. Others mention the importance of tools like ESLint and linters for catching such potential issues and suggest that relying on ASI can be problematic. A few users share personal anecdotes of encountering similar unexpected JavaScript behavior, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of these parsing quirks. One commenter suggests the puzzle demonstrates why "simple" languages can be more difficult to master than initially perceived.
The author explores several programming language design ideas centered around improving developer experience and code clarity. They propose a system for automatically managing borrowed references with implicit borrowing and optional explicit lifetimes, aiming to simplify memory management. Additionally, they suggest enhancing type inference and allowing for more flexible function signatures by enabling optional and named arguments with default values, along with improved error messages for type mismatches. Finally, they discuss the possibility of incorporating traits similar to Rust but with a focus on runtime behavior and reflection, potentially enabling more dynamic code generation and introspection.
Hacker News users generally reacted positively to the author's programming language ideas. Several commenters appreciated the focus on simplicity and the exploration of alternative approaches to common language features. The discussion centered on the trade-offs between conciseness, readability, and performance. Some expressed skepticism about the practicality of certain proposals, particularly the elimination of loops and reliance on recursion, citing potential performance issues. Others questioned the proposed module system's reliance on global mutable state. Despite some reservations, the overall sentiment leaned towards encouragement and interest in seeing further development of these ideas. Several commenters suggested exploring existing languages like Factor and Joy, which share some similarities with the author's vision.
BritCSS is a humorous CSS framework that replaces American English spellings in CSS properties and values with their British English equivalents. It aims to provide a more "civilised" (British English spelling) styling experience, swapping terms like color for colour and center for centre. While functionally identical to standard CSS, it serves primarily as a lighthearted commentary on the dominance of American English in web development.
Hacker News users generally found BritCSS humorous, but impractical. Several commenters pointed out the inherent problems with trying to localize CSS, given its global nature and the established convention of using American English. Some suggested it would fragment the community and create unnecessary complexity in workflows. One commenter jokingly suggested expanding the idea to include other localized CSS versions, like Australian English, further highlighting the absurdity of the project. Others questioned the motivation behind targeting American English specifically, suggesting it stemmed from a place of anti-American sentiment. There's also discussion about the technical limitations and challenges of such an undertaking, like handling existing libraries and frameworks. While some appreciated the satire, the consensus was that BritCSS wasn't a serious proposal.
pdfsyntax is a tool that visually represents the internal structure of a PDF file using HTML. It parses a PDF, extracts its objects and their relationships, and presents them in an interactive HTML tree view. This allows users to explore the document's components, such as fonts, images, and text content, along with the underlying PDF syntax. The tool aims to aid in understanding and debugging PDF files by providing a clear, navigable representation of their often complex internal organization.
Hacker News users generally praised the PDF visualization tool for its clarity and potential usefulness in debugging PDF issues. Several commenters pointed out its helpfulness in understanding PDF internals and suggested potential improvements like adding search functionality, syntax highlighting, and the ability to manipulate the PDF structure directly. Some users discussed the complexities of the PDF format, with one highlighting the challenge of extracting clean text due to the arbitrary ordering of elements. Others shared their own experiences with problematic PDFs and expressed hope that this tool could aid in diagnosing and fixing such files. The discussion also touched upon alternative PDF libraries and tools, further showcasing the community's interest in PDF manipulation and analysis.
Mark Rosenfelder's "The Language Construction Kit" offers a practical guide for creating fictional languages, emphasizing naturalistic results. It covers core aspects of language design, including phonology (sounds), morphology (word formation), syntax (sentence structure), and the lexicon (vocabulary). The book also delves into writing systems, sociolinguistics, and the evolution of languages, providing a comprehensive framework for crafting believable and complex constructed languages. While targeted towards creating languages for fictional worlds, the kit also serves as a valuable introduction to linguistics itself, exploring the underlying principles governing real-world languages.
Hacker News users discuss the Language Construction Kit, praising its accessibility and comprehensiveness for beginners. Several commenters share nostalgic memories of using the kit in their youth, sparking their interest in linguistics and constructed languages. Some highlight specific aspects they found valuable, such as the sections on phonology and morphology. Others debate the kit's age and whether its information is still relevant, with some suggesting updated resources while others argue its core principles remain valid. A few commenters also discuss the broader appeal and challenges of language creation.
Parinfer simplifies Lisp code editing by automatically managing parentheses, brackets, and indentation. It offers two modes: "Paren Mode," where indentation dictates structure and Parinfer adjusts parentheses accordingly, and "Indent Mode," where parentheses define the structure and Parinfer corrects indentation. This frees the user from manually tracking matching delimiters, allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Parinfer analyzes the code as you type, instantly propagating changes and offering immediate feedback about structural errors, leading to a more fluid and less error-prone coding experience. It's adaptable to different indentation styles and supports various Lisp dialects.
HN users generally praised Parinfer for making Lisp editing easier, especially for beginners. Several commenters shared positive experiences using it with Clojure, noting improvements in code readability and reduced parenthesis-related errors. Some highlighted its ability to infer parentheses placement based on indentation, simplifying structural editing. A few users discussed its potential applicability to other languages, and at least one pointed out its integration with popular editors. However, some expressed skepticism about its long-term benefits or preference for traditional Lisp editing approaches. A minor point of discussion revolved around the tool's name and how it relates to its functionality.
Keon is a new serialization/deserialization (serde) format designed for human readability and writability, drawing heavy inspiration from Rust's syntax. It aims to be a simple and efficient alternative to formats like JSON and TOML, offering features like strongly typed data structures, enums, and tagged unions. Keon emphasizes being easy to learn and use, particularly for those familiar with Rust, and focuses on providing a compact and clear representation of data. The project is actively being developed and explores potential use cases like configuration files, data exchange, and data persistence.
Hacker News users discuss KEON, a human-readable serialization format resembling Rust. Several commenters express interest, praising its readability and potential as a configuration language. Some compare it favorably to TOML and JSON, highlighting its expressiveness and Rust-like syntax. Concerns arise regarding its verbosity compared to more established formats, particularly for simple data structures, and the potential niche appeal due to the Rust syntax. A few suggest potential improvements, including a more formal specification, tools for generating parsers in other languages, and exploring the benefits over existing formats like Serde. The overall sentiment leans towards cautious optimism, acknowledging the project's potential but questioning its practical advantages and broader adoption prospects.
Summary of Comments ( 104 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43970800
Hacker News users generally praised the author's approach of building a language tailored to their specific needs. Several commenters highlighted the value of this kind of "scratch your own itch" project for deepening one's understanding of language design and implementation. Some expressed interest in the specific features mentioned, like pattern matching and optional typing. A few cautionary notes were raised regarding the potential for over-engineering and the long-term maintenance burden of a custom language. However, the prevailing sentiment supported the author's exploration, viewing it as a valuable learning experience and a potential solution for a niche use case. Some discussion also revolved around existing languages that offer similar features, suggesting the author might explore those before committing to a fully custom implementation.
The Hacker News post titled "A programming language made for me" (linking to zylinski.se/posts/a-programming-language-for-me/) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters engaging with the author's approach to language design.
Several commenters praised the author for taking the initiative to build a language tailored to their specific needs and workflow. They saw this as a valuable exercise in understanding language design principles and appreciated the author's willingness to share their process and rationale. Some saw it as a refreshing alternative to constantly adapting to existing languages that might not perfectly fit a particular problem domain.
A recurring theme in the comments was the tension between creating a language specifically for personal use versus designing one for a wider audience. Some argued that hyper-specialization could limit the language's applicability and hinder collaboration, while others emphasized the benefits of prioritizing individual productivity and enjoyment. One commenter suggested that starting with a personal focus could be a good first step, potentially evolving into a more general-purpose language later on.
There was also discussion around the practicality of maintaining and evolving a personal language. Some commenters questioned the long-term viability of such projects, highlighting the potential challenges of debugging, tooling, and documentation. Concerns were raised about the "bus factor" – the risk of the project becoming unsustainable if the sole developer becomes unavailable.
Technical aspects of the language itself were also discussed, with some commenters offering specific feedback and suggestions. Topics included the choice of syntax, the implementation of certain features, and the potential benefits of incorporating existing language constructs or libraries. One commenter recommended exploring existing niche languages that might already address some of the author's needs.
Finally, some commenters drew parallels to other projects where individuals had created custom tools or languages to solve specific problems, emphasizing the empowering nature of such endeavors. They highlighted the potential for personal projects to lead to unexpected insights and innovations.