grumpyprole

And to read rumour sites about the next model.

VSCode is pretty much this. But with typescript instead of Guile. After 30 years of Emacs, I switched .

Yes, the belief that markets self regulate, was proved incorrect by the 2008 financial crisis.

Not always. There's no Minecraft for Mac, they even prohibited Macs running the iPad version. It's essentially been ported to Apples APIs but purposely withheld from macOS.

Both :)

Yes, it will also have 5 mins of battery life when unplugged and have a power adapter the size of a shoe box. I tried a similar machine from Lenovo at work and quickly returned it.

That's absolutely insane.

Does this really test Claude in a useful way? Is building a highly derivative programming language a useful use case? Claude has probably indexed all existing implementations of imperative dynamic languages and is basically spewing slop based on that vibe. Rather than super flexible, super unsafe languages, we need languages with guardrails, restrictions and expressive types, now more than ever. Maybe LLMs could help with that? I'm not sure, it would certainly need guidance from a human expert at every step.

I certainly don't mean to knock nominal types. But I think structural types are more fundamental. A language would only need a single "newtype" or "nominal" keyword to create nominal types from structural types.

Most languages have poor support for structural types though. If you try and join two records together (like a SQL join), what will your favourite language infer then?

What you are describing is structural types. It is indeed a mystery that these are so under used, especially as they are a cornerstone of type theory. Structural types are so useful that they creep into most languages in some way. Even in Java, the Kingdom of the Nouns, where the rulers refused to merge a pair class, functions essentially take tuple arguments and these tuples don't have to be named and defined. You can't return a tuple though, so there is an unfortunate asymmetry. In Haskell and OCaml, we like to describe functions in a structural way, so com.google.android.Predicate would be just "a -> Bool". You wouldn't have to convert your com.google.guava.Predicate. But even these languages lack structural records and variants and suffer for it.

It's overblown until it isn't. Hoare didn't pluck that number from thin air. This is now a solved problem in modern programming languages. If Odin doesn't have this and other essential memory safety features, it's certainly not worth the massive retooling effort.

Yes it's the burden of proof. That's why writing Rust is harder than C++. Or why Python is easier than anything else. As a user and customer, I'd rather pay more for reliable software though.

Less of the personal attacks please, you know nothing about me. I actually think it is you that is missing context here. Don Syme personally visited and presented at a variety of investment banks. He was the creator not a marketing type. I was present at one of his pitches and met him. One bank, Credit Suisse ended up adopting it. Any comparisons he made to C# where based around readability and time to market (C# is very verbose and boilerplate heavy compared to both Python and F#). This was all on the 2010-2015 timeframe. Python ended up winning in these markets. My point has always been that this now puts it in a difficult position, it's simply not radical enough to disrupt but still carries the perceived "functional programming" barrier to entry.