EDIT: see below I would imagine ClojureScript has more parens in the narrow sense, but I can imagine it being "morally correct" if one considers angle brackets, curly braces, square brackets, and parentheses per se as "morally equivalent". So, yeah, while this is a dirt simple example, it does demonstrate that it can be the true. In addition to that: - Clojurescript code is easier to edit, e. JDiculous on Feb 7, root parent prev next [—].
That's false. In Clojure pretty much every single line of code has a minimum of two parenthesis opening and closing. You can get all defensive about it, and of course one's perception of it is entirely subjective, but it's the main reason I don't use it.
It's okay. A few years ago, I was in the same boat. Even if I completely believed that eating cocaine for breakfast is somehow beneficial for your health, that still would not be on the same level of how wrong was my prejudice against Lisp. Oh boy, I was so wrong about Clojure. I was working for a startup, building a. Net project with Angular 1.
And I was on a failing trajectory - code was full of holes, I was struggling to finish things on time, I was stressed, I started to hate things for no apparent reason. Finally, after years of writing software, I just wanted to quit and learn something else - woodworking, photography, cooking, landscape design - whatever.
Deep down, I knew - it was not due to the technology choice. The same project could've been re-written in other languages I knew and still be as frustrating. Long story short - I started learning Haskell. That improved my coding skills tremendously. But there was some hump I couldn't get over - Haskell was still extremely difficult, I was not even near to the level of being able to write production-ready Haskell code. Besides, I wanted to write web apps. And Haskell's options were not great at the time.
And suddenly, everything I've struggled with Haskell started making more sense. And unlike Haskell, Clojure turned out to be a much more pragmatic choice - I am more productive today than I ever was before. Even more than I was with Python, Ruby, or Go. Today, even if I have to write something in another language, I would first prototype it in Clojure and then translate it to another language. It may sound stupid, but that is the fastest way for me to build things.
Learning Clojure opened a whole new world for me. Logic programming, generative testing, dependent types, concurrency and parallelism, distributed and numerical computing, probability, etc. I never knew all these things are approachable even by a lazy and simpleminded idiot like me.
Learning Clojure improved my work, my relationship, my confidence, my health. The only regret I have - I carried my unfounded prejudice for years, but the door was there all the time, I kept ignoring it. I just needed to walk through that doorstep. Don't hate parentheses of Lisp - they may look ugly to you today, but trust me, there's a lot of beauty and elegance that you may not be seeing. Its a rare line of JS that doesn't include at least one of a conditional, a function call or definition, or grouping parens, outside of declarations.
Scarbutt on Feb 5, parent prev next [—]. Clojurescript is unmaintained and full of bugs, the same for the cljs parts of core. Fake news. Clojurescript today is a much more pragmatic and production ready option, more popular than Elm, Reason and Purescript, better than Scalajs and KotlinJs and definitely much better than JavaScript and Typescript.
Last commit was 2 months ago, so I wouldnt say unmaintained. And Ive yet to hit a bug. Mint needs to up their "we are better than X because From what I can see: it has zero incremental development. You must start with Mint and haul in other new tools, or it doesn't work. That's a nonstarter, and part of the reason why VueJS was so easy to integrate. I read the Guide briefly and don't see any advantages.
It looks like they thought-out the most trivial scenarios, and that's it. Recursive components? Data sharing? Author here, yeah noted.
I should do a better job on selling the language but it's not easy doing this as a single individual. I can however elaborate on the points raised: - Recursive components: you can do it, the type-checker allows it and it works, or goes into an infinite loop if you don't exit correctly. If it's data sharing between components you can do that by creating a store and connect as many components to it as you like.
The fact is that there is some many things built in that it is hard to fit it on a single page above the fold, that's why I would say it's advantages is: it's the only thing you should need. Could you elaborate on this? The main selling point of VueJS and Elm if I remember correctly is that you can try it out in your existing code even though with non-trivial setup.
Another problem with a framework especially for UI, is that you need a network effect, that is really a good chunk of people who had tried it in production and could vouch for it, so that other folks can atleast give a thought about giving it a try. This is important given the rate of UI framework churn and JS fatigue that people have gone through in recent times.
VueJS and Elm are not the same thing. Vue is just a JS library. Elm is a an entire language with its own tools and ecosystem. Yet, they are same when it comes to the value proposition of trying it out in the existing code base right? Since my original comment revolved around that I took those two examples instead of say React and Vue. First off, congratulations on developing and launching a product. You've done what 0. No criticism can take that away! As for my points: 1.
If I do an update on a dropdown, it is reactively stored in the component dataspace, but without a bus, my only choice for alerting other components is for the main component to watch that variable, keep a list of current components, and then iteratively broadcast: e.
I must invent a message queue. How does Mint address address this problem? You won't be able to do that in the forseeable future. Multiple reasons why: - Rich Harris author of Svelte : eager when laziness is preferable , styling is problematic, add confusion to attributes vs. A lot of people are waiting for Web Components folks to answer how you're supposed to render them without JS i.
Yeah, I am too, although I'm not entirely opposed to using them with JS, it would be nice. I always wondered why you can't reuse HTML code. I think Components are the obvious way forward. AndrewSChapman on Feb 5, prev next [—]. I'm curious. Vue is opinionated and comes with single file components, a router, a store etc. What I am aiming for is to move away from writing JavaScript or minimize it to the level where it's more controllable. I've come from Elm where it is done in a very good way, but it's too restrictive, and I like react and it's expressiveness so I wanted to combine the two.
Vue is really good but at the end you are still writing JavaScript which is really hard to do in a safe way. Why is this a goal? Could you elaborate? Does it need to be? I haven't really needed more from the type system. Has your experience been different? JS is on an extreme end of the spectrum of language inconsistencies, and a lot of developers with extensive experience in other languages strongly prefer not to use it.
That's partly why there are so many languages that transpile to JS so you don't have to suffer though actually writing it. Further, UI development is an area where things can get messy very quickly. This is one reason why Elm and Clojurescript have had years of adoption -- they by default make values immutable and their entire programming paradigm doesn't actually require mutating most values ever which removes a large class of common UI errors. There are other benefits as well.
I don't think there's any need to sealion the author on this. To your first question: JS's warts are well understood. You must already acknowledge this if you're a TS fan.
To your second: TS isn't 'actually' safe, to the extent something like Elm is i. This is also no secret - there are lots of examples out there if you care to search for them. You should checkout ReasonML! I've been wishing for a clean way to write a render function using JSX for every Vue component. Once I tried out React I fell in love with using ordinary JavaScript array methods instead of v-for directives and so on. I'm a student, hate webpack, and don't want to learn it's nuances for a few years.
I know from googling this can be done with sufficient webpack config. Walder's Law states that: In any language design, the total time spent discussing a feature in this list is proportional to two raised to the power of its position. Semantics 1. Syntax 2. Lexical syntax 3. Forum rules. Post by linuxnewbie98 » Sun Apr 22, am Is it actually possible to access and see the source code of Linux Mint? Re: What's the programming language Linux Mint has been coded in?
For custom Nemo actions, useful scripts for the Cinnamon desktop, and Cinnamox themes visit my Github pages. Post by linuxnewbie98 » Sun Apr 22, pm Thanks so much! Post by xenopeek » Sun Apr 22, pm The above link was only for the software developed by Linux Mint. But Linux Mint is built on top of Ubuntu and Debian. With well over a thousand additional pieces of software installed from Ubuntu or Debian repositories on your system.
While a lot of those will also use have been written use the above programming languages, there are even more programming languages used for all the available pieces of software from those repositories. If you're looking for a greener Linux pasture, you won't find any that is greener than Linux Mint. Tools are secondary to skills. In the end, the test for me is whether or not I get results. I hate this shit. You could mention also the Ocsigen project.
Creating a new langage does not solve a single one of the problem you listed at the beginning of this article. Could it be you just copy-pasted the equality example and forgot to alter it for Mint? The graphic comparing to is, aside from being out of date, misleading because of the duplicate icons. If you are the application owner, check your logs for details. That really went nowhere in terms of adoption and was hard to wrap your head around. I wonder if the Mint authors are aware of this?
My biggest concern is performance, especially when it comes to checking equality. What do the performance numbers look like with larger objects? What about an object with a recursive reference?
In other words, not only does immutability mean that repeated operations on the same data can be memoized, but a lot of the difference between value comparison and reference comparison falls out of mutability in the first place.
Pretty sure Kotlin has all these features, including being able to transpile to JS. Why not simply extend that with the syntactic sugar instead of inventing yet another language?
And yeah, I think Kotlin is ultimately the way to go for the future of web development. Because ELM is as good as dead. Development has stopped and it makes little sense to use it at this point.
This is a bit the concern with MINT, looks interesting but will it survive? WebAssembly and other technologies should be the future.
The times of new languages and JS frameworks are over. Trying to write a little bit of code in Typescript, we have to think about what editor VSCode is my favorite , what module system, how to bundle, how to serve as http and how to debug.
Then we need to think about Angular, Vu or other frameworks and install MB of node modules yes, my current fun project without any framework and just some simple libraries contains MB of node modules. TypeScript was my hope of a language that not only provides modern features to a language that was invented in just 1 week by one man just because Microsoft otherwise would have dominated the web with VBScript, but I was hoping that around TypeScript there would be standard a framework of concepts to build SPAs and small helper scripts for other html applications.
I guess Mint will share the same problem: too many developers with very different ideas about what will be cool to set up and not enough time to find the solution that is already there. I was turned off as soon as the article said that Mint is statically typed.
With static typing tends to come boilerplate code. The boilerplate-heavy languages of the past tended to be nominally typed with little or no inference. The ones that have survived have moved towards adding degrees of type inference and supporting more structural typing over time.
There should be only 2 different languages for whole development 1 Programming language, 2 Markup language. Proper code-behind model should be provided. There should be a universal and standard way to bind data to the UI, both at run-time, and build-time. May 19, Bump version to 0.
Jul 3, View code. FAQ Why functions called fun instead of function? Why is the language called Mint? What makes Mint unique? Contributors Backers Sponsors License. A refreshing programming language for the front-end web, aiming to solve the most common issues of Single Page Applications SPAs at a language level: Reusable components Styling Routing Global and local state handling Synchronous and asynchronous computations that might fail While focusing on: Developer happiness Fast compilation Readability Project Status The project is in development, we are still tweaking the language and standard library.
Backers Thank you to all our backers! Releases 23 0. Sponsor this project opencollective. You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
0コメント