1. async function will be called from no async function but no async/await keyword. If you want to block main thread then block_main() function will be used. block_main() /* operations */ unblock_main()
2. protocol can inherit another protocol(s) & protocol can confirm a class like swift.
3. no `let`. only `var`. compiler can optimize further.
4. if (a == (10 || 20 || 30) || b == a) && c { }
5. `Asterisk` is replaced to `x` operator for mul operations.
What are the features you found or you need in a programming language?
I want types, like typescript, but instead of compilation, there should be a "boot type check" which does about the same checks as tsc, but the types should be first-class, available at runtime, so I can pass them around, create, read, update and delete them at runtime.
I want runtime code creation that is more robust than creating source-code as strings and then compiling them, I want first-class code-as-data like in LISP. I want to be able to define some blocks of code, and conditionally combine them the new blocks which I can compile to functions. I want to be able to derive functions that is more, less or different from their parents (for example, removing or replacing a number of its statements) (basically, I want to have enough control that I can chose a pattern of generating ideal callbacks with no conditionals)
I want to be able to express (I use % for lack of a better idea right now, this is the type-safe version of the syntax))
const someBlock = (a: number, b:string)=%{ console.log(a+2+c); }
And pass it to a function: myFunc(1, someBlock, 3);
(and someblock should be able to use it: function someFunc( aBlock: % ) { const a = 1; const c = 3; someblock; }
I want better introspection, if I pass a function, there's no reasonable, robust and performant way to reason about that function.. You can't access its parameter list to learn the names of its parameters, their type or number, you can't access its body to learn what it does, you can't even see its return type, to determine what to do with its result, mind you, most of this metadata is already present in the js runtime, just not exposed in a good way to the language.. You can't even access the ast.
People want to be able to write either python or javascript (i.e the 2 most widely used languages) , and have a compiler with an language model (doesn't have to be large) on the back end that spits out the optimal assembly code, or IR code for LLVM.
Its already possible to do this with the LLMs direct from the source code, (although converting to C usually yields better results than direct to assembly) but these models are overkill and slow for real compilation work. The actual compiler just need to have a specifically trained model that reads in bytecode (or output of the lexer) and does the conversion, which should be much smaller in size due to having a way smaller token space.
Not only do you get super easy adoption with not having to learn a new language, you also get the advantage of all the libraries in pypi/npm that exist that can be easily converted to optimal native code.
If you manage to get this working, and make it modular, the widespread use of it will inevitably result in community copying this for other languages. Then you can just write in any language you want, and have it all be fast in the end.
And, with transfer learning, the compiler will only get better. For example, it will start to recognize things like parallel processing stuff that it can offload to the GPU or use AVX instructions. It can also automatically make things memory safe without the user having to manually specify it.
How would you do things like dynamic code execution or reflection? Lots of properties are stripped as part of the compilation that you wouldn't be able to refer back to.
Are you just saying write python -> interpret it -> compile it -> convert to assembly? Because I believe that already exists, but is difficult to just do that all the time because of the compile step and having to convert to static typing
You'd have to generate reflection data at compile time. And llvm supports dynamic code generation, so that's not a problem either.
Not really sure why anyone would want to do an interpreted language though.
ARM architectures are getting instruction set bloat and RISC-V is also tending that way with many variants being produced.
I prefer minimal syntax, e.g. Lisp, Smalltalk, Self. Then let the abstractions be plugged in with appropriate compiler support. I find the idea of blessed built-in types constrain implementation designs due to their prevalence.
I once saw this in a language called metamine and the demo was amazing, mixed imperative and declarative programming interweaved.
Because of the similarity to swift language, perhaps hazel[3] option to highlight differences between standard swift & swift-like language.
-----
[1] Pygments, generic syntax highligher : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41324901
[2] Treesitter : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39408195 / https://github.com/mingodad/plgh
[3] : Hazel: A live functional programming environment featuring typed holes : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42004133 ~
My pet peeve is multiplication: u64*u64=u128. true on any modern hw, true in math, false in any programming lang that I know of. There are many others like unnecessary assumptions on how easy is to access memory.
Vector and matrix ix should be another first class citizen.
The reason for a lang vs just writing in asm are 1) I don’t want to distinguish x86 vs arm, 2) I want a compiler + optimizer.
A linter what the reasoning for all rules is well explained, similar to shellcheck or eslint.
Both ideally integrated in an LSP, which also has all the common features of a modern LSP.
* procedures as first class citizens
* lexical scope
* strongly typed
* single character syntax and operators
* inheritance and poly instantiation as a feature of language configuration but remove from language instantiation
* event orientation via callbacks. many developers don’t like callbacks but they provide the most flexible and clearly identifiable flow control path
* single string format with interpolation
- Pattern matching (arguably a more flexible and general way to do the type of thing you have in your number 4 if syntax)
Make it easy to use multiple cores without forcing the user to think about it constantly.
- Haskell algebraic data types + syntactic sugar
- C/Lisp macros
Better to have some guiding principles or philosophy, and arrive at C, Lisp, APL, Lua, SML or Haskell.