Programming

17279 readers

369 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Recommend me a programming language (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

174 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been working with a Javascript (+ TypeScript) + Java + SQL stack for the last 10 years.

For 2024 I'd like to learn a new programming language, just for fun. I don't have any particular goals in mind, I just want to learn something new. If I can use it later professionally that'd be cool, but if not that's okay too.

Requirements:

Runs on linux
Not interested in languages created by Google or Apple
No "joke languages", please

Thank you very much!

EDIT: I ended up ordering the paperback version of the Rust book. Maybe one day I'll contribute to the Lemmy code base or something :P Thank you all for the replies!!!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Factor!

It's incredible and elegant and defies some common categorization.

I've put some of my favorite resources in the sidebar of https://programming.dev/c/concatenative and I'm happy to walk through any particular challenges/examples -- I've done about the first week of Advent of Code with it this year, and the most recent handful of Perl Weekly Challenges, and some basic Euler problems.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: [email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Re the sidebar: How are Nim and Roc partially concatenative?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I may be expressing it poorly and inaccurately, but what I mean is that in Nim you can re-order arguments and functions to start with some data followed by a series of transformations. The following two lines are equivalent:

parse_int(read_line(stdin))
stdin.read_line().parse_int()

Roc offers a similar flow with their |> operator. Here's a snippet from one of my Advent of Code 2022 solutions:

partOne =
    "input.txt"
    |> getData
    |> Task.await \data ->
        data
        |> getRangePairs
        |> List.keepIf pairHasStrictSubset
        |> List.len
        |> Num.toStr
        |> Stdout.line

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Function_Call_Syntax

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Exactly. That's the second link under "Wikipedia Topics" in the sidebar.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s true, but if the transformations have more than one argument, they go after the name:

data.split(",").join(";")

as opposed to concatenative programming languages, where all arguments go before the name and there’s no visual indication of the structure:

data "," split ";" join

Also, there are more languages with this feature, for example D, VimScript or Koka.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s true, but if the transformations have more than one argument, they go after the name

Yup, I understand. That's why I've not put them in the concatenative section.

Also, there are more languages with this feature, for example D, VimScript or Koka.

Thanks, maybe I'll add them to the sidebar! I hadn't heard of Koka.

If you have a suggested heading/description to replace "partially concatenative" I'm interested. Function chaining? And I'm not sure but maybe execline is actually concatenative and needs to be moved out of that section.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I think “uniform function call syntax” is the established term for this particular feature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Thanks. I know that's the case for Nim's flexibility, but I didn't think it applied to the pipe operator stuff like in Roc. I'll do some reading tonight to confirm.