1. 21
  1.  

  2. 3

    From a quick eye-balling it looks like Go should always have been. Interesting.

    1. 3

      Folks, if the title of the submissions matches the regex /release/ anywhere, tag it with the software tag.

      This is not some advanced alien space technology. ffs.

      EDIT: Sorry to grump in this case, but I’ve seen this happening a lot recently.

      1. 1

        Pony seems like it has some noble goals but there’s a lot of decisions in the language (like a lot of other recently created languages) that are really idiosyncratic and turn me off of it. E.g. making fields/properties private because they start with an underscore. I far prefer using a clear keyword than “cute” methods of denoting things are special like this. What if I don’t want to have underscores on all my private properties? I don’t like typing underscores, they’re annoying.

        Similarly, the use of single quote as an allowed part of a variable name because the language wants to be cute and do a math-y “prime” indicator is silly. In computing single quotes come in pairs. All this does is make it so Pony requires truly unique parsing mechanisms to handle it.

        Maybe it’s just me. I wish more modern languages would avoid being so goofy. But I guess the desire to be weird is what leads people to make a new language in a lot of cases.

        1. 15

          In computing single quotes come in pairs.

          Any language derived from Haskell or ML will allow primes in identifiers, and use of them is idiomatic. Also in Lisp family languages the single quote is not seen in pairs.

          All this does is make it so Pony requires truly unique parsing mechanisms to handle it.

          Unpaired single quotes are easily matched by a regular language, so any standard lexing mechanism can handle it

          1. 1

            Yeah, yeah. I should have said “usually”. There are of course Lisp languages and others who don’t always pair single quotes but by far the more common usage is the C-style use.

            My biggest regret about not being more clear is that everybody dog piled on that and totally missed my point; that is only one example of Pony being goofy just because the authors seem to want to be goofy. Even if you’re ok with that one, there’s a bunch of others like using underscores instead of public/private keyword(s), mandatory non-starting caps of anything that isn’t an actor or class, etc.

            I was trying to make a bigger point that a lot of modern languages (not just Pony) seem to do this; they eschew convention for whatever the author(s) own idiosyncratic preferences are, and I think they all suffer because of it.

          2. 8

            I would argue that having both single and double quotes, either interchangeable or with arbitrarily different semantics, is the clunky decision, and that single quotes are far more useful as variable names or symbol tags

            1. 6

              I don’t like typing underscores, they’re annoying.

              Well clearly no language is capable of catering to every person’s arbitrary demands. What if a person comes along who doesn’t like typing ‘e’, because it’s all wriggly and stuff?

              In computing single quotes come in pairs.

              Whoa there, when did the council of computation (COC) vote to declare single quotes to always come in pairs?? Why wasn’t I notify?

              1. 2

                Similarly, the use of single quote as an allowed part of a variable name because the language wants to be cute and do a math-y “prime” indicator is silly. In computing single quotes come in pairs. All this does is make it so Pony requires truly unique parsing mechanisms to handle it.

                Since when and according to whom? In Lisp single quotes aren’t matched, and the Lisp family is quite a bit older than C.

                1. 1

                  Calling these decisions as “cute”/“goofy”/“idiosyncratic”/“desire to be weird” is gratuitously dismissive. You may not agree with the design - I don’t agree with all of it either - but please assume good faith.

                  On the specific points, I think a convention rather than an extra keyword for private is probably the right way to go - conciseness is valuable, and everyone ends up using a convention anyway. And Haskell-style prime is a common, established convention in many, well, Haskell-style languages. It’s different from the C/Java/Perl/Ruby/Python style, sure, but that doesn’t make it idiosyncratic.

                  1. 1

                    Maybe it’s just me. I wish more modern languages would avoid being so goofy. But I guess the desire to be weird is what leads people to make a new language in a lot of cases.

                    I know “me-too” posts are not cool, and I know this isn’t about Pony - I haven’t looked into it much beyond reading some of the feature-descriptive stuff posted here, which honestly seem pretty cool; having actors in a typed language whose syntax some people find palatable than erlang but without the ruby styling would be grand - but, in general: EXACTLY.

                    I’ve recently had to be learning a bunch of the vagaries of ES6 in order to work with React Native/redux etc and, dude, what is with these people? Object spread operator is illegible, unnecessary magic nonsense for the sake of a few keystrokes. Object field assignments of same-named variables are so implicit as to be muddy beyond belief. Single-argument arrow function definitions go to the point of actually requiring extra brackets if you want to return just an object because … well, I guess because they couldn’t figure out how to tell the parser that this was what you meant. Totally stupid, totally unnecessary, actively confusing, and all in the name of being cool and “fresh” and “new” and saving the Sublime Text kids a few characters here and there, when what they actually need is a bit more clarity and saner semantics rather than more apparently surface but actually genuinely confusing syntactic sugar messing everything the hell up.

                    On the flip side, the ES6 generators and “yield” are a boon, and in particular the redux-saga implementation is the best bit of async-managing stuff I’ve seen in JS land. (Just so it’s not all a total rant.)

                    Sorry, had to get that off my chest. I know I sound like an old giffer too but I’m past worrying about that. I’d genuinely like to know a bit more about Pony and will spend a bit of time looking into it when this current project is done, even if the name is a pretty bad omen here in UK ;-)

                    As you were.

                    [edited for grammar right after posting to make more sense]