xvm VS star

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:

my own language Star! enjoyability is one of my main goals with the language, along with the "powerful, productive, and predictable" line

This is actually done by several bootstrapped languages, such as Crystal, Nim, Raku, and even my own language Star

In Star, commas and newlines are analogous everywhere, even inside array literals. This actually solves the issue of trailing commas by not needing commas at all

I really like Nemerle's OOP+FP hybrid model, and I've taken a lot of it to heart while designing my language Star, which is similar in spirit.

Most languages are afraid to for some reason, most likely because it "breaks tradition" or whatever. The only languages I'm aware of that allow this are Hack (for C-like enums) and my language Star (for both C-like and OCaml-like enums)

It's currently a work-in-progress, mainly due to subtyping issues with generics (which I'm honestly too lazy to fix rn, focusing on other stuff first). the code is located here, although be aware that it's a bit messy lol

Making lots of progress on Star's typechecker, which has been very difficult due to its expansive type system. Although still not completely finished or useable, it does at least work a bit. Currently need to implement type variable expansion/substitution, "lazy" type refinement (because I have no clue what else to call it), and some basic support for existentials

I think this is referred to as partial or lazy initialization. I have this feature in my own language Star (which us null-safe), but I don't have an actual null literal for this purpose

Sure I guess, here's one for Star: ``` You appear to be advocating a new: [X] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based [X] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [X] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [X] beginner-friendly [ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

Hello, I'm the developer of the Star programming language, and I have some questions about how to typecheck several new/uncommon features that it has, and looking for feedback on it in general.