On Saturday, 20 September 2014 at 14:22:32 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Not really a problem with the language. Just problems.

It is kind of interlinked in a world that keeps moving forward. I found myself agreeing (or at least empathising) with a lot of what Jonathan Blow said. Of course, since his presentation was laid-back the people on reddit kind of attacked him and who knows, maybe he lost inspiration. He did at least respond on twitter. And his language project probably depends on his next game Witness (which sounds cool) to succeed.

Anyway, I think he got the right take on it, reach out to other devs in his own sector and ask them about their practice, then tailor a language with little syntactical overhead for that use scenario. Of course, it won't fly if he doesn't manage to attract people who are more into the semantics of computer languages, but I root for him anyway. I like his attitude.

On a related note I also read somewhere that Carmack is looking at GC for the gameplay data. Basically only a heap scanning, but compacting GC, that can run per frame. Seems the game logic usually fits in 5MB, so it might work.

Definitely can agree, I think it has to do with the sentiment that it is "too much like C++"

Yes, I think Jonathan got that part right. I guess also that any kind of "unique traits" that feels like "inventions" will be eagerly picked up and hold up as good ideas by enthusiasts. Even if they are just special cases of more general constructs or variations of existing concepts posing under a new name. Perhaps an important aspect of the sociology of computer languages. (Lispers tend to be terribly proud of their language of choice :)

8. Not enough performance oriented process.

Not sure what you are saying, are you saying there is not a big enough focus on performance?

I think there is too much focus on features both in language and library. I'd personally prefer smaller and more benchmark focused. It is better to be very good at something limited, IMO.

I also think that the big win in the coming years come for the language that most successfully can make elegant low overhead access to SIMD instructions without having to resort to intrinsics. I have no idea what the syntax would be, but that seems to be the most promising area of language design in terms of performance IMO.

Reply via email to