Ooh, nice idea of unifying Programming Languages or translating a code into other languages code: 00:00 Programming Languages: similarities and overlap 01:01 An attempt: write in a language and output it to 13 different ones 02:24 On the problem of Software Reusability 03:13 Possible Solution: The Theory and Technology of Progsbase Programming Language 05:17 Progsbase features 07:36 Languages common grounds except Haskell 08:52 Common mechanism failures 10:41 Languages categories: Computational and Infrastructural 11:46 Globals, pure functions 12:13 Memory Management, Java or C++ translations 13:43 Practical Limitations 15:46 Exceptions and error handling 17:15 On idiomatic programming patterns 19:35 Style, rather a language to rule all other languages 21:52 In comparison to Unison 22:20 Source Tree and Differing Versions 23:59 Open Source and Licensing 24:04 Libraries and AST 26:50 Devices and Networks 29:32 Threads and Serialization 30:27 Code Optimization in Progsbase 33:34 Modules for Distributed Systems 34:25 Different Servers with Different Languages 36:35 Project duration, production and stabilization 37:16 The Company, the project and its tasks 41:00 Language targeting in Production 42:34 For you: $100-$200 Bug Bounty challenge 44:38 Getting Started with Progsbase 47:26 Conclusion 47:41 Point for Reflection
minor nitpick about the intro: PHP started as a thin wrapper around C, so it’s very close to it to this day, and got its object model from Java, so it would be fair to say PHP sits in between the other two.
I do admire people that have enough passion to run such projects and to be fair, it's very difficult to predict what this idea will evolve in the end. As for the project itself, I kinda struggle to see some production value in it: - you can't really use it for converting old code, as it imposes harsh limitations and will require rewriting the original system - using it for some "shared modules" in the system with multiple languages - maybe... But then those shared modules will be very limited and not utilizing language full potential So, it's somewhat the opposite of a web assembly, if I understand it correctly... So, maybe if you could take the web assembly module and "decompile" it into a nice readable code in a preferred language - that would be nice. But then again, it will be hell, as different languages give you different ways of structuring your code and we will probably get back to "we only support this specific structure of the code for this language".
VBA is how I got started out (bit over a decade ago now for reference), as I just a data analyst. Where my boss said, "You know computers, could you automate it?", I said "I assume so", and then used the record function as a starting point for a lot of stuff, and googling for the rest. So you can write a bunch of VBA without writing VBA that way too. Did many things in that company from there, and then my next role was at a tech company, and I haven't touched VBA since.
The objective of putting together generalities, seems to impose decisions that aren't meaningful on any other grounds, such as ditching ints and keeping floats. But design principles create their own (at least seemingly) arbitrary needs in many other places. I wonder if that's a bad sign or something unavoidable.
@@edwardharman1153 I actually write mostly C and JS . And I try to write them simple enough that I can easily transcribe one to the other . I stay away from bool and just use int . if( success >= 1 ){ ... } Is clearer and more specific than : If( success == true ){ ... } The fake free() function doesn't seem like that bad of a solution though .
Very interesting but when I heard the idea of sharing libraries between languages, I immediately objected that this is the great purpose of WASM! It also relies on shared abstractions but at a lower level, which allows every features of a language to be used. It can mix languages with or without GC, which is not easy using the guest’s approach. Finally, the infrastructure abstraction would be handled by the WebAssembly component model. I do really appreciate all the effort put into this project but it cannot compete with the big players that support WASM!
The problem isn't that all languages are the same, but that programmers think they can solve the problem they're working on using their one preferred language. Use the languages, multiple when necessary, that are appropriate to each part of the problem, because every problem is really multiple problems. Too many programmers with hammers seeing every problem as a nail.
I'm very skeptical that this common subset approach can lead to a language that high-quality composable code can be written in. The fact that you have manual memory management and error handling through return values makes it sound a lot like C, a language which is notoriously difficult to compose safely. However, the idea of making things simpler to make them more maintainable is something I fully support.
Unpopular opinion, but generalizing common patterns from several is just creating another, generic programming language. What makes languages special is the uniqueness, like python has libraries from pip, java has JDK API, and it's libraries, PHP has lots more (funky) functions and each have their frameworks. I think, even though it would be more chaotic, but combining supersets rather than subsets would make a more in-demand and useful programming language.
This will be well off into the future for me but I have a similar goal but the approach will be extremely different. The reason for this goal is because I have a computer architecture that is literally infinitely parallel.
