Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Falling In Love With Gleam" video.

  1. Another point I dislike. It makes what's happening in the code far less clear than simply using the keyword return. I don't think that's too much to ask.
    3
  2. The only thing good about it is the concurrency because it uses BEAM. It's literally a less effective Rust. I wonder how long he had been working on it because I'm still not ready to release my language, but mine will have function overloading and allow using whatever Unicode characters you want. And I still take issue with the fake inference that modern languages have. let as a keyword to define an object, is just dumb. It's basically a weaker version of the auto keyword in C++ because now you're asking for permission. In my language you can infer by just doing foo := bar; The only reason for the : notation in setting a value in my language is to tell the compiler to create something there. It's just a way of catching mistakes, so you won't be likely to do foo = bar; and later baz = foO; and get a value or error you don't expect. It also works as a conditional guard so you don't accidentally set the value in a conditional. I also take issue with the import systems for every modern language, even C++. If I'm importing a library I expect it to be immediately accessible. So import io; and everything in the io subsection of the library is accessible, but you can also do import io as io; and keep it in its own namespace or import io as fluffernutter; if you want. I also took the approach of inferring meaning in cases where the context tells me what you're referring to, such as enum Color { Red, Green, Blue }; Color c = Green; instead of requiring Color:Green to explicitly get at the namespace, though you can still be explicit if you want. I did the same for switch. switch c { Red: foo(); break; Green { bar(); baz(); } Blue { print( "Green doesn't fall through because it enclosed the case in braces.\n Red does fall through because it designates a section.\n" ); } }. I also avoided the Java style keyword duplication by allowing a modifier to enclose a block or start a section. So say you want to make a group of functions public, just do public: and everything until the next section is public, and you can stack them. I still don't understand why everyone wants to copy Java and JavaScript for function syntax. No need for a keyword, just use a regular pattern.
    2
  3. Agreed. Let the language speak for itself. No mascots for any.
    2
  4. I feel that way about certain characters too, and I've got a US keyboard. Here we call () parentheses or parens, {} braces and [] brackets. I prefer brackets for most things because I don't have to hit shift to type them, but I still use braces often in writing code because it just makes sense. However, I did toy with the idea of an all bracket version of LISP. It looked weird, but I think people could get used to it.
    1
  5.  @RenderingUser  Massively is debatable. It's the one modern language I adamantly refuse to use for a huge number of reasons.
    1
  6.  @RenderingUser  I'll just lump all of the decisions on forcing a particular design pattern and source code style into one giant complaint. Then add GC onto that list. You don't have to use low level memory handling to avoid GC either. Consider C++'s current memory management model as an example of more or less how to do it right. It's not perfect, but it's still better than everything that came before.
    1
  7. Yeah, that's another one I don't get. My own language doesn't enforce a style on the users. Use whatever case you want, use whatever Unicode characters, even overload functions. So why every other new language has to do nonsense like that I don't get it.
    1
  8.  @RenderingUser  That's your opinion, and you're free to have it, just don't force it on others.
    1