Then again, I'm the kind of person who've chosen $'.\U0001F9CC' (that is, $'.\xF0\x9F\xA7\x8C') for a file extension of my own toy language so...
Programming to an abstract interface — and in large codebases, enforced visibility controls — represent the middle ground everyone wants, in my experience, between “OOP” and “sir, this is C”.
Yep. Interface-based (true) delegation between objects would be my go-to if it existed.
The example definitely shines. Doing something barely non-trivial is great since it gives a feeling for the language. I wish other language introduction pages would take note.
Also really interesting are the author's blog with articles on language design (for example his thoughts on exceptions, and how he added them to his language, then decided against them), and the change log for the language, showing its evolution.
> The language is not object oriented but it provides some features to facilitate object oriented designs.
It has classes and implicit `self`. Not nothing, but I don't think it's incorrect to say has any more OOP than general purpose languages like Lua or JavaScript in that sense.
Something like Pony[1] is a more mature and feature rich entry and has a much better OOP story.
All that said: a) I'm sorry for doing the thing I hate when other people do
b) Creating a language is a big undertaking, and it's super cool that they did it
c) I see it seems to already be written in Copper too, which is also very neat!
As long as:
* Your language is the kind of language that suits compiler development.
and
* You support compiling to C or something so that bootstrapping doesn't involve an opaque binary or compiling 30 different git commits in a row.
What are the downsides exactly?
Since the majority of programs are not compilers, it might make more sense to focus on interesting things that aren’t relevant to compilers.
Some ideas from the top of my head: async I/O, a great SIMD story, effect systems, robustness systems for long-running processes (I’m only aware of Erlang/Elixir), and many others.
Compilers do exercise some things, like error handling and memory management, but they’re not particularly difficult or interesting in general.
Bootstrapping is a one-time cost, but implementing the toolchain in C is a cost everyone has to pay every single time they touch the toolchain source.
There's a difference between nitpicking the topic of the article and nitpicking someone's grammar.
The comment is saying that the language has more OOP than Lua or JavaScript, but it seems like it might have been meant to say the opposite. That, and it appears to be missing a subject (which I assume to be ‘it’ or ‘the language in question’, based on context). So personally I do find it somewhat confusing.
The problem is not the double negative itself, though; it’s more how it’s being used in context here.
IMO, that text is confusing.
“Not nothing” is saying it has some OO features.
“I don't think it's incorrect to say has any more OOP than general purpose languages like Lua or JavaScript in that sense” = I think this language has more OOP than languages like Lua or JavaScript”
So, that more or less says “A, but A”. If so, what’s the “but” about?
I had retyped it a few times trying not to come off as overly negative or a jerk.
What is the memory model here? What does it compile to? What makes it 'low level'? Is there a GC? Does it have ABI compatibility with C or a FFI?
There do seem to be some Unicode constants in the standard library:
https://tibleiz.net/browser.html?path=std&title=Standard%20L...
That's used... to make what?
Here's my current stab at a small compiled language: <https://codeberg.org/stevefolta/lx-2025>.
Multiple return values are kind of weird, but maybe it is just me. Overall this is something I will give a try.
> Ruby-style syntax
Also, Python has significant whitespace, which this language does not appear to have.
As others have proclaimed: what matters is taste. And (perhaps?) a deep understanding of the subject matter. Which may or may not be encoded in formal specifications. But may also include 'fuzzy' domain-specific knowledge that can't be scraped from the web.
> Humans don't code anymore
I do, and I'm far from alone. Whether 'product' gains traction, that's another matter. But you know what? It doesn't matter. If it works for [author], that's enough.
I find that difficult to believe. Is there some objective evidence?
AI is undergoing cosmic inflation, we get further apart faster.
> like someone writing out machine code by hand vs using a compiler back in the day
Programming using a compiler is still the same kind of thing, just in a different language.
For example, variable declarations use the pattern <colon> <type>, as in
But literals follow the opposite syntax, as in The return type of a function is introduced by : in func definitions, but by -> in imported func declarations: Other construct that I find far from my habits: instead of the more obvious (for me): Arguments are passed by ref, not by val. Good luck with recursion!