we got bogged down in the type checker.
Conversation
notionally this could subsume any existing data format, whether self-describing or not. and then you could have a whole tool stack built on top of it - equivalents of diff, version control, grep, structure editors... but the tools would work on any data you had a schema for.
1
3
you could also implement programming languages on top of it, and stop using text files altogether. that's further out though.
1
1
anyway it's a lot of work and, while it would benefit the world, we think we can do more to help the world in the political domain rather than by spending our time building things.
1
1
thank you for asking.
2
3
1
1
Oh neat! I'm currently making a dependently typed data description language at - the intension is to describe existing binary data formats, but that is a big challenge, hehe. Trying to chip away at it. I really like the sound of this!
1
5
Using it as a basis for other tooling sounds really cool. :) :)
1
1
> we got bogged down in the type checker.
haaaa! The struggle! I'm implementing it directly in Rust, but it often feels cumbersome and slow. I do wonder if I would have been better served making more prototypes.
2
1
yeah the challenge is basically that most of the people who understand dependent type checkers are mathematicians rather than programmers. so all the explanations of it are, um, abstract.
3
4
Yeah, it's taken me the better part of two years to get my head around them and I'm still learning. The core is simple - the other things and all the bells and whistles/design choices are… less so!