deno_lint VS lobster

Fast compilation seems very appealing. It is one of the main reason why I am interested into Go and Zig.

I recently started working with Rust for contributing to projects like Rome/tools [1] and deno_lint [2]. The compilation and IDE experience is frustrating. Compilation is slow. I am afraid that this is rooted to the inherent complexity of Rust.

[1] https://github.com/rome/tools

[2] https://github.com/denoland/deno_lint

Though, for large scale projects, I’d wait until https://github.com/denoland/deno_lint/issues/303 is done; if they tackle that, they tackled types, and that’s the single big thing yet to tackle.

There isn't any uniformity that could be reasonably achieved once plugins are added to a linter. Someone will always want an edge case for their project covered even if it's not in the uniform configuration; most large projects either use plugins or custom rules outside of what ESLint provides. Deno understands this too given that plugin support is being considered.

Deno's lint config is under deno.json or deno.jsonc and is limited to the following rules: https://lint.deno.land/

$ deno lint (prefer-const) `order` is never reassigned let order = new Order() ^^^^^ at /Users/dina/try-deno/design-patterns/state.ts:106:4 hint: Use `const` instead help: for further information visit https://lint.deno.land/#prefer-const Found 24 problems Checked 25 files

I built one of the tools mentioned in the article, Deno's linter. Its binary is over 30 MiB:

After a long time, I started contributing to open-source software. For a long time, I had my eye on Deno. This week, I merged my first PR in Deno Lint. Following is the detailed post about the issue.

I think lobster does this.

"Compile time reference counting / lifetime analysis / borrow checker."[1]

"Reference Counting with cycle detection at exit, 95% of reference count ops removed at compile time thanks to lifetime analysis."[1]

[1] https://strlen.com/lobster/

There is another language, Lobster, that uses lifetime analysis like Rust, but IIUC infers lifetimes completely automatically. It looks like the idea is still experimental - I'm interested to see how it goes.

I think the ability to open a window and do graphical stuff is actually pretty underrated in core language functionality. There's a few game-oriented programming languages like Lobster that put windowing and graphics in the core language functionality, and I think it's pretty neat. The biggest downside is that it's a lot to bite off, because you'll probably want to have standardized API functionality for a whole host of things like font rendering, image loading, etc.

The actual game itself, yes. Based on this open source project though which provides the language its written in and core engine tech: https://github.com/aardappel/lobster

I'm keeping an eye on Lobster though. It fixes most of Python's problems. It's way faster, has proper static typing, the import system is sane, etc.

Lobster (https://strlen.com/lobster/) appears to at least do lifetime analysis to reduce refcounting. I'm not sure about automatic interior mutability. I feel like there's a keyword here that can help find other compilers with similar features.

Also, can I introduce you to https://strlen.com/lobster/, a garbage collected language made for game development by (and primarily for) the one and only Wouter "aardappel" van Oortmerssen?

I would like to make it work to some degree like Rust with a borrow checker, and have optional static typing (with type inference wherever it can). Other sources of inspiration, lobster lang, and dart. It is going to (eventually...) compile to several places like dart (browser, iOS, android, linux, etc.). After I've created the AST, I've gone straight to code generation, because that's the easy part IME. But now have to insert the "middle" and do typechecking/borrowchecking/inference/other checking. This is for an imperative-style language.

Over the ~12 years of Lobster (https://strlen.com/lobster/) 's existence, features that were removed (in this order): * Lexical scoping. * Icon style backtracking. * Small-talk like syntax. * Dynamic Typing. * Multimethods. * Frame based state (like FRP). * Co-routines.