I'm kind of warming up to the idea of "what if there was no string type" or at least, what if you couldn't make them
There is no string type in Bel. They're just lists of characters. It's actually very convenient, because all the list operations work on them.
-
-
Erlang is built that way. It... works, but it's inconvenient at times. Despite having used Erlang for much longer than Elixir, I think Elixir's handling of strings is a real improvement
-
Prolog and Haskell too. Though in the long run, you need some kind of vector type on modern CPUs to leverage their cache locality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hrm, I was more thinking about trying to avoid strings as an escape hatch or as part of control flow. Encourage good representations.
-
Mmm, yes. It would at least be a good rule of thumb, along the lines of goto considered harmful.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Do you use 32 bits per character to accommodate for the full Unicode range?
-
The Bel spec doesn't specify what a character is, but it would be weird if an implementation didn't.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Haskell did this and it turned out to be a particularly bad decision. Now every Haskell codebase had to spend time converting between three different string types: the default String (which is just [Char]), ByteString, and Text.
-
"Do the opposite of what paulg says" is pretty good life advice (unless your goal is to cheat people out of money I guess)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.