Glide
Pipefish
Glide | Pipefish | |
---|---|---|
13 | 36 | |
2 | 138 | |
- | - | |
10.0 | 9.2 | |
over 1 year ago | 3 days ago | |
C++ | Go | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
Glide
-
How do you deal with lack of motivation?
I've added the code to the repo: https://github.com/dibsonthis/Glide/blob/main/imports/csv.gl
-
Glide - code now on Github
So for the past few months, I've been working on my data transformation language Glide. It started off as a simple toy PL that aimed to do some basic data transformation through piping. But as time went on, more and more features were added and the implementation became more complex.
-
Glide and its type system
I'm about 70% through writing Glide's new type system. Here are some examples:
-
List comprehension syntax
Hey all, I'd like to hear your opinions on Glide's list comprehension syntax:
-
My new type system caught a bug in my own standard library that would have ruined someone's day at runtime
I was hesitant to spend time building a proper type system originally, but I'm so glad I decided to do it. Having a typing stage in the pipeline has made my language (Glide) feel so much closer to a real language than the toy language I've always seen it as.
-
Implemented a compile time type system for Glide
Just finished the core implementation of a compile time type system for my language Glide.
-
Glide + wiki documentation
Link to documentation: https://github.com/dibsonthis/Glide/wiki
-
Readability vs. Performance
I'm working on building out the csv module in my language Glide and I'm at a bit of a crossroads. I initially envisioned the csv module to build a list of objects out of the data and the user manipulates those objects directly and then can serialise them back to csv. However, I've also come up with a different solution that doesn't involve objects, but only flat lists.
-
Best use of time: Building a Static type system in the compiler or a Dynamic type system in the language?
My language Glide is currently dynamically typed, however I've been trying to build some sort of type system for it. I chose to go with a dynamic type system because I felt it would be a lot easier to get going, and can be written directly in the language. But I've also noticed that I could be using this time and effort on implementing a "real" static type system in the compiler itself. But I'm unsure which direction I want to take.
-
How do you determine what goes into the standard library?
So I've noticed the more code I write in my language (Glide), the bigger my "standard library" gets. And by standard library, I mean a bunch of different files that contain really handy functions, i.e list functions like map, filter, reduce and string functions like to_chars, split etc.
Pipefish
-
Charm 0.4: a different kind of functional language
Charm is a language where Functional-Core/Imperative-Shell is the language paradigm and not just something you can choose to do in Python or Ruby or PHP or JS or your favorite lightweight dynamic language. Because of the sort of use-cases that this implies, it didn't seem suitable to write another Lisp or another ML, so I got to do some completely blank-slate design. This gives us Charm, a functional language which has no pattern-matching, no currying, no monads, no macros, no homoiconicity, nor a mathematically interesting type system — but which does have purity, referential transparency, immutability, multiple dispatch, a touch of lazy evaluation, REPL-oriented development, hotcoding, microservices … and SQL interop because everyone's going to want that.
-
Charm 0.4: now with ... stability. And reasons why you should care about it.
I think it's fair to call this a language announcement because although I've been posting here about this project for a loooong time, I've finally gotten to what I'm going to call a "working prototype" as defined here. Charm has a complete core language, it has libraries and tooling, it has some new and awesome features of its own. So … welcome to Charm 0.4! Installation instructions are here. It has a language tutorial/manual/wiki, besides lots of other documentation; people who just want to dive straight in could look at the tutorial Writing an Adventure Game in Charm.
-
Programming in Plain Language?
In my own language there is some syntactic flexibility but the only thing that describe pretty table could mean would be the second of the possibilities above; the first would be expressed by describe prettyTable and the third by describe PRETTY, table. This makes it more readable from the point of view of a coder, and who else is going to want to read it, my mom?
-
Embedding other languages in Charm: a draft
I've been trying to think of a way of doing this which is simple and consistent and which can be extended by other people, so if someone wanted to embed e.g. Prolog in Charm they could do it without any help from me.
-
Lazy Let: A Cheap Way and Easy Way to Add Lazyness
Charm does this for declaration of local constants in functions (there are no local variables in functions). So for example if you wanted to write the Collatz function this way (which you wouldn't, it's just a minimal example) then you could do so without worrying about a computational explosion:
-
[OC] Median yearly salaries in the US for all programming languages with more than 200 respondents in the StackOverflow Developer Survey
I guess it's time for me to put aside my exploration of Charm and set up a collaboration with my son the lyricist.
-
Global and local variables, a choice of evils
In fact that's how a lot of Charm programs end up getting written, because you want to pass a whole bundle of stuff to the functions. For example.
-
What the imperative shell of an Functional Core/Imperative Shell language looks like
No, it's "shell" as in "shell of the code". The idea is that the imperative bits of the language, the bits that do the mutation of state and the IO, can can call lovely pure referentially transparent functions. But functions can't call commands (otherwise by definition they wouldn't be pure). So all your imperative-ness is reduced to about 1% of your code which lives right at the top of your call stack --- the "imperative shell" of your code. See [here](https://github.com/tim-hardcastle/Charm/blob/main/examples/adv.ch) for an example. The "imperative shell" is the main function --- all 13 lines of it --- and everything everywhere else is pure and immutable.
-
What are some cool things you've built using your own language?
I'm not sure what counts as cool. It's just dogfooding at the moment. I did a bunch of other languages (only the BASIC and the Forth are up to date with the current version of the language I think), and I did a tiny adventure game (and used it as the basis for a tutorial).
- Langception VIII: Ourobouros — I wrote Forth in Charm again
What are some alternatives?
jevkalk - A Jevko-based interpreter.
utop - Universal toplevel for OCaml
motorway-lang - An esoteric programming language based on the British motorway network
sprig - Useful template functions for Go templates.
parsejevko.js - [DEPRECATED] Deprecated in favor of https://github.com/jevko/jevko.js
butter - A tasty language for building efficient software. WIP
Cwerg - The best C-like language that can be implemented in 10kLOC.
wyvern - The Wyvern programming language.
ocaml - The core OCaml system: compilers, runtime system, base libraries
subtex - Lightweight latex-like language for authoring books
utena
Skript - Skript is a Bukkit plugin which allows server admins to customize their server easily, but without the hassle of programming a plugin or asking/paying someone to program a plugin for them.