I hate to be that guy too with this answer :) But having functors would have totally blown the complexity/learnability budget.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton @freebroccolo
Who cares? It's a totally uninteresting way to design a language, and such arguments rely entirely on flimsy notions of "learnability" anyways.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Keeping an eye on cognitive budget is how Rust was done, and I think it's entirely appropriate. A language is a brain-computer interface, and if the brain part doesn't interface well, the project fails. (Also note: we _tried_ 1st class modules and _our_ brains couldn't do it.)
1 reply 4 retweets 50 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pasiphae_goals and
((Today, of course, I would try again: more people have worked both on the tech itself and on making it accessible in the meantime. I'm hopeful modular implicits or something 1MLish works out, too.))
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pasiphae_goals and
(((By "accessible" here I mean accessibility to the implementors. If you're doing research tech transfer, as we were, it's often the case that the implementors -- dumb old systems hackers -- aren't as good at a thing as academia. Can't implement something we don't understand.)))
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pasiphae_goals and
Yeah, I'm actually super interested in this. Would really be curious about getting us a dependently typed systems language with even more of the stuff we've learned. Still getting to grips with dependent types though

https://github.com/brendanzab/pikelet …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brendanzab @pasiphae_goals and
I feel like we did ok shipping only about 5 years late, and on our 3rd runtime and 4th type system. The key was always to save people trapped in C++-world, not be a research testbed. Dependent types can wait for the next language :P
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @brendanzab and
(This is my persistent nag that nobody wants to hear: that I kinda wish people would stop adding new stuff in, or at least approach an asymptote; it's plenty complex as it is, and there's always the risk of losing the thread of the thing.)
6 replies 1 retweet 16 likes
I’m sympathetic to that feeling, but there’s some stuff that is really important, like async/await. I/O story isn’t complete without it.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton @brendanzab and
I know. The story there is so long and awful I wouldn’t dare commemt (cf. “three runtimes”); and I know there’s a need to finish const-eval and macros since these were on the table from day one and never finished. The rest I’d put on ice. Wait a few years. Measure twice.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pcwalton
We share the sense that the language should grow asymptotically. There is a community that perennially proposes features well past the limit but they aren’t pursued
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
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.