1. 12
  1. 6

    The page doesn’t mention it, but the thing that really makes Clean notable is uniqueness types.

    1. 1

      Is this the same as Pony’s iso, or only superficially so?

      1. 1

        They don’t seem to be related. Pony’s work with capabilities seems to be an extension of capability-based security.

    2. 5

      Looks great, but I can only imagine the pain it has to be to google for things about it

      1. 2

        Good point. However there are languages like J, K, and Q that manage to grab mindshare. As long as there’s a Wikipedia page you’re halfway there.

        1. 5

          Googling for J is absolutely miserable. J gets you nowhere. J language gets you a few things but also a ton of javascript, java, and julia noise. Jlang gets you languages and libraries called “Jlang”. If you add any descriptor words, like j language reverse array, the noise dominates even more and you’re left with no information at all.

          1. 2

            Microsoft Research’s P lang is another example of this ridiculous single-letter convention. It is worth more than the lousy name it was given.

        2. 4

          Clean had some great documentation compared to some other languages in the early days. I based Factor’s first version of parsing combinators based on a lazy list of successes on the parsing combinators from a chapter in the Clean book which was my first encounter with the subject.