claro-lang VS xvm

Interesting, although it seems to currently be missing a license. While Bazel and I are for sure not friends, I found this funny https://github.com/JasonSteving99/claro-lang/blob/v0.1.495/W... I guess it's similar to having a maven build under Nix but my relationship to Bazel is why I got a chuckle out of the russian doll setup

Oh wow, it looks like we've stumbled upon the same construct! In my language, Claro, what you call "interfaces" are called "contracts". I've found it to be a very powerful abstraction!

In fact, you've actually been a huge source of inspiration for building keyword-generics into the programming language I've been working on in private for the past 2 years! The language is called "Claro" and if you're interested, please take a look at the blocking-generics syntax that your initiative has inspired.

I've tried to do something unique in my lang, Claro. To avoid spamming my same comment again, check out my answer to a very similar thread yesterday

Didn't see the Github link (but having all the info here is certainly appreciated)

Hmm, so I still feel that C3's imports actually are binding to a specific implementation like other imports (Java/C/python/etc). I think a language would need to embed dependency injection concepts deep into its veins to avoid this. You'd need a way for implementation files to specify that they depend on something with a certain name and a certain interface but not to name the specific implementation. Then a separate parallel module system (more like a Guice (dep injection framework) module than the modules in C3) would indicate the specific implementation that happens to be desired this run of the program. This is the inherent modularity that I'm looking to implement in Claro. There's some prototyping of this idea in the example programs at https://github.com/JasonSteving99/claro-lang/blob/main/src/java/com/claro/claro_programs/modules.claro

In Claro I'm trying the following distinct types of procedures:

Have a look at the ecstasy library for the language definitions of these types.

2) Funky interfaces: This is an Ecstasy interface that declares abstract static members (e.g. functions), which can then be implemented on any class and overridden on any sub-class, such that they can be invoked by type (instead of this), and virtually resolved (late bound at runtime) based on the type known at compile time. The best known example, of course, is Hashable, because it has to guarantee that a type implements both equals() and hashCode() on the same class, and the implementation is tied to the type, and not to the this. (C# added a similar feature last year in version 11.)

I'm just going to warn you in advance that invocation is one of the hardest things in the compiler to make easy. In other words, the nicer your language's "developer experience" is around invocation, the more hell you're going to have to go through to get there. The AST nodes for Name( (NameExpression) and Invoke( (InvocationExpression) alone are 7kloc in the Ecstasy implementation, for example -- but the result is well worth it.

Ecstasy uses message passing automatically behind the scenes for asynchronous calls, but the message passing isn't visible at the language level (i.e. there is no "message object" or something like that visible). Basically, all Ecstasy code is executing on a fiber inside a service, and services are all running concurrently, so from any service realm to any service realm, the communication is by message.

Regarding Ecstasy, we did not set out to build a new language; we actually set out to solve a real world problem. Specifically, we wanted to be able to dramatically improve the density of workloads in data centers, by at least two orders of magnitude in the case of lightly used applications. Our initial goal was to create a runtime design that would support 10,000 stateful application instances on a single server. Let's call it the "a10k" problem 🤣 ... a tribute to the c10k problem from 1999. We refer to our goal as "zero carbon compute", i.e. we want to push the power and hardware cost for an application to as close to zero as possible; you can't reach zero, but you can get close. If we succeed, we will help reduce the electricity used in data centers over the next few decades by a significant percentage.

Generally, left to right, one character at a time. If you’re looking for example code, here’s a simple hand-built lexer.

Parts of Ecstasy are now implemented in Ecstasy. Here's the Lexer, for example.

Ecstasy

Ecstasy and the xvm were designed assuming an adaptive runtime compiler (similar in concept to the Hotspot compiler for Java), but not necessarily using a JIT.

A Future reference has the various capabilities that you'd imagine, taking lambdas for thenDo(), whenComplete(), etc. The reference, in the above example, is a local variable, so you just obtain it using the C-style & operator: