Vale only ever made it to version 0.2, which I consider roughly equivalent to "an intriguing proof-of-concept". It was more about trailblazing over stability, experiments over users. And it succeeded (Vale directly inspired at least three languages to add linear types, huzzah!), so no more work is happening with it, so users probably shouldn't be using it.
I'm taking the opposite approach with Valen: I'm going to finish Rust interop and memory safety, stabilize everything until it's actually solid, and only then will I let myself move onto the more flashy features (like blending group borrowing with generational references!). Before that, probably only fellow language nerds should use Valen.
... A language that leans into simple/elegance, instead of solving each new problem with a new keyword or a new library or a new idiom or a new syntax or a new DSL. I'm tired of languages that create complicated bureaucracies in figuring out how to express and every last computation in never ending changing verbiage, creating a sort of "rent seeking/gate keeping" option for "those that master the system".
(this is a dig at Rust and C++ and all the like; I've not read enough Vale to see where it measures in the above regard)
Well said. I think two opposing things will happen:
(Benefit) Valen is inherently more flexible, and provides an easier way to use existing Rust libraries (at first via group borrowing, and later via RC that doesn't need Cell/RefCell). It's bringing simplicity to one of today's most complex ecosystems.
(Cost) Even though Valen's semantics are simpler and easier than Rust's, people might find themselves in situations where they need to understand both Rust and Valen. "Complex" + "simple" = "more complex", which is bad.
The big question is whether the benefit will be greater than the cost. Maybe Valen will be a wonderful simplifying interface, and do well. Or maybe the abstraction will leak Rust's complexity, and not do well.
I think it will all come down to language design, culture, and ecosystem management. I don't know the answers, but I do know that they need to be figured out before launching to a wide audience, that's for sure.
wofo | 10 hours ago
This is true hacker work :)
Keep going, I'd love to hear more and try things out after the cleanup round!
[OP] Verdagon | 10 hours ago
High praise! Thank you =)
Student | 9 hours ago
What’s the deal with Vale these days? Should anyone other than you be using it @verdragon?
[OP] Verdagon | 8 hours ago
Vale only ever made it to version 0.2, which I consider roughly equivalent to "an intriguing proof-of-concept". It was more about trailblazing over stability, experiments over users. And it succeeded (Vale directly inspired at least three languages to add linear types, huzzah!), so no more work is happening with it, so users probably shouldn't be using it.
I'm taking the opposite approach with Valen: I'm going to finish Rust interop and memory safety, stabilize everything until it's actually solid, and only then will I let myself move onto the more flashy features (like blending group borrowing with generational references!). Before that, probably only fellow language nerds should use Valen.
travisgriggs | 7 hours ago
... A language that leans into simple/elegance, instead of solving each new problem with a new keyword or a new library or a new idiom or a new syntax or a new DSL. I'm tired of languages that create complicated bureaucracies in figuring out how to express and every last computation in never ending changing verbiage, creating a sort of "rent seeking/gate keeping" option for "those that master the system".
(this is a dig at Rust and C++ and all the like; I've not read enough Vale to see where it measures in the above regard)
[OP] Verdagon | 6 hours ago
Well said. I think two opposing things will happen:
The big question is whether the benefit will be greater than the cost. Maybe Valen will be a wonderful simplifying interface, and do well. Or maybe the abstraction will leak Rust's complexity, and not do well.
I think it will all come down to language design, culture, and ecosystem management. I don't know the answers, but I do know that they need to be figured out before launching to a wide audience, that's for sure.
Would welcome any thoughts if you have them, btw.
veqq | 9 hours ago
The footnote-margin comment merging approach is quite interesting (as well as the footnote boxes).
FRIGN | 3 hours ago
Rust has too weak of a type system to be good as a base-language. However, imagine you could build bindings on top of Ada! Now that would be amazing.