jellylanguage VS ponyc

At least on the Code Golf Stack Exchange, I see a lot of people using esolangs for golfing (two random examples: Jelly [1] and O5AB1E [2]). I expect that it could be a line or two shorter at least with a change of language. As I recall some of the golfing langs also have pretty sophisticated compression techniques for strings, although they might be optimized for dictionary words. Careful distinction: they are all optimizing for bytes used, not characters used.

I don't want to neglect your shameless plug, but I struggle enough to find a solution to some of the puzzles I wrote (hence the undo), so finding the shortest path is a little daunting.

[1] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage

[2] https://github.com/Adriandmen/05AB1E

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: I am also solving most of these problems in Jelly, a recreational language designed for code-golf. They are in the same repository under the jelly folder.

Jelly (put the input in the first command line argument):

Yes it is totally possible, Batch script is Turing complete afterall. Since you found Python tutorials, you can just apply the same concepts in Batch. The difficulty depends on the complexity of the language you're trying to make. I would recommend trying to make a stack-based language first, with the syntax similar to golfing languages (ie, one character is one "command", check out https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage), since that would be the easiest. But obviously if you're up to it you could make a fully fledged programming language.

This is a basic version of many commonly used ideas for string compression in golfing languages. Jelly [0] is a good example of a more practical and versatile approach that builds on ideas such as this.

[0] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage/wiki/Tutoria...

(As an aside, some people "stop" here and then make programming languages based on this - because that is a simple interpreter... you could write a compiler for this language, or extend it - and the great golfing languages take that starting spot and keep going - don't worry about trying to replicate it, it takes some insanity to go that far - the point is that a stack based language is the starting spot for some impressive systems... like the JVM itself)

If you like code to be as short and unreadable as possible, try out Jelly.

Arguably, however, if you think about "High Level" in terms of "how many keystrokes do you need to do X complex task" (kinda like some mean komolgorov complexity measure over a set of tasks) then code golf languages could probably be the most "high level". Take Jelly for instance. Incomprehensible garbage when written, but goddamn if it isn't character efficient.

I am waiting for a time when we get Angular or React in Jelly [1]

[1] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage/wiki/Tutoria...

Being honest with naming things is also a great roundabout way to ensure you write maintainable, readable code. If the name is honest and it feels awkward, it's a good red flag that there might be a problem with the approach you're taking. I think code golf languages (a-la [0]) are a good example of this approach as well, when your language is as terse as possible, giving very deep consideration to what the language actually does is crucial.

[0] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage/wiki/Atoms

For example, the actor's model is not used by a lot of languages, Pony (https://www.ponylang.io/) and Elixir are the only ones that I know, but they address the concurrency problem quite well, while it's a pain to deal with in other languages at large scale.

And that last point is critical. If the language flatly can't represent some concepts it uses, they have to be implemented somewhere else. I had a similar discussion with a proponent for Pony once- the language itself is 100% safe, and fully dependent on C for its runtime and data structures. One of Rust's core strengths is being able to express unsafe concepts, meaning the unsafe code can expose a safe interface that accurately describes its requirements rather than an opaque C ABI. Vale doesn't seem to do that.

"Exterior iteration. Iteration used to be by stack / non-escaping coroutines, which we also called "interior" iteration, as opposed to "exterior" iteration by pointer-like things that live in variables you advance. Such coroutines are now finally supported by LLVM (they weren't at the time) and are actually a fairly old and reliable mechanism for a linking-friendly, not-having-to-inline-tons-of-library-code abstraction for iteration. They're in, like, BLISS and Modula-2 and such. Really normal thing to have, early Rust had them, and they got ripped out for a bunch of reasons that, again, mostly just form "an argument I lost" rather than anything I disagree with today. I wish Rust still had them. Maybe someday it will!"

I remember that one. The change was shortly after I started fooling with Rust and was major. Major as in it broke all the code that I'd written to that point.

"Async/await. I wanted a standard green-thread runtime with growable stacks -- essentially just "coroutines that escape, when you need them too"."

I remember that one, too; it was one of the things that drew me to the language---I was imagining something more like Pony (https://www.ponylang.io/).

"The Rust I Wanted probably had no future, or at least not one anywhere near as good as The Rust We Got."

Almost certainly true. But The Rust We Got is A Better C++, which was never appealing to me because I never liked C++ anyway.

Pony or bust.

If you have a value in mutable storage, and want to treat it as an immutable parameter without copying it first, you will need to provide some way to guarantee that it won't be mutated while being treated as immutable! There doesn't seem to be a definitive best way to do that (although the likes of Pony make a try at it).

The love child of Erlang and Rust exists already: Pony.

https://www.ponylang.io

It really is the best of both languages... unfortunately, the main supporter of Pony seems to have stopped using it in favour of Rust though :D.

But if that's really what you want, Pony is your language. It definitely deserves more love.

You can actually try to have a magic language which "does not ignore decades of PL research" but you are likely to get either something broken or a project that is likely not going to release in our lifetime.

Never a bad time to plug Pony lang[1] - a safety-oriented actor-model language. In addition to the numerous safety guarantees, you also get a beautiful syntax and automatic memory management. Really a great language that often gets overshadowed by Rust's hype-turfing.

[1]: https://www.ponylang.io/