lobster VS Kind

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.

As a developer of a proof assistant (Kind) I'm highly interested in this line of work. Can you point me to some of these papers? And perhaps people involved in this line of work?

Kind: A modern proof language (though functional).

I have seen in languages like KindLang the definition of Array be like a Binary tree, but there is some magic there in the definition of the Array type that I don't understand yet. Also, I don't want to define the contiguous array further., it should be a literal contiguous array. The Kind "Word" type definition (arbitrary number of bytes) is closer to my contiguous array, but it has a similarly complex definition which like I said I don't understand.

Totally agree about the Blub Paradox, but there's definitely value in Self Types. See, for example, [Kind](https://github.com/Kindelia/Kind), which is able to type recursive data types by using Self Types.

For these who don't know, I'm the author of Kind and HVM. I've recently seen a criticism from an influent person in the community, who I often took as an inspiration, that made me really sad. "the guy behind this has built some impressive-sounding stuff before... it looks like his projects tend to just... go nowhere and he just abandons them and does something else?"

This is very easy with dependent types! For example, in Kind: