Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@robotlolita
Last active May 10, 2017
Embed
What would you like to do?
Why Purr is awful

You appear to be advocating a new:

  • functional
  • imperative
  • object-oriented
  • procedural
  • stack-based
  • "multi-paradigm"
  • lazy
  • eager
  • statically-typed
  • dynamically-typed
  • pure
  • impure
  • non-hygienic
  • visual
  • beginner-friendly
  • non-programmer-friendly
  • completely incomprehensible programming language.

Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

You appear to believe that:

  • Syntax is what makes programming difficult
  • Garbage collection is free
  • Computers have infinite memory
  • Nobody really needs:
    • concurrency
    • a REPL
    • debugger support
    • IDE support
    • I/O
    • to interact with code not written in your language
  • The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
  • Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
  • Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy
  • Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
  • Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate
  • Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them
  • "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun

Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):

  • comprehensible syntax
  • semicolons
  • significant whitespace
  • macros
  • implicit type conversion
  • explicit casting
  • type inference
  • goto
  • exceptions
  • closures
  • tail recursion
  • coroutines
  • reflection
  • subtyping
  • multiple inheritance
  • operator overloading
  • algebraic datatypes
  • recursive types
  • polymorphic types
  • covariant array typing
  • monads
  • dependent types
  • infix operators
  • nested comments
  • multi-line strings
  • regexes
  • call-by-value
  • call-by-name
  • call-by-reference
  • call-cc

The following philosophical objections apply:

  • Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
  • Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"
  • The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler
  • The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
  • No language spec
  • "The implementation is the spec"
    • The implementation is closed-source
    • covered by patents
    • not owned by you
  • Your type system is unsound / [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed
    • a proof of same is attached
    • invoking this proof crashes the compiler
  • The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
  • Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
  • Compiled languages will never be "extensible"
  • Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete
  • Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible
  • There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language
  • ____________________________ takes exponential time
  • ____________________________ is known to be undecidable

Your implementation has the following flaws:

  • CPUs do not work that way
  • RAM does not work that way
  • VMs do not work that way
  • Compilers do not work that way
  • Compilers cannot work that way
  • Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand()
  • You require the compiler to be present at runtime
  • You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
  • Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
  • Dangerous behavior is only a warning
  • The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
  • The VM crashes if you look at it funny
  • You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
  • You don't seem to understand basic systems programming
  • You don't seem to understand pointers
  • You don't seem to understand functions

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:

  • Unsupported claims of increased productivity
  • Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"
  • Obviously rigged benchmarks - [ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls handwritten assembly through your FFI - [ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE - [ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS
  • Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
    • assembly
    • C
    • FORTRAN
    • Java
    • Ruby
    • Prolog
  • Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
  • Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
  • Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification
  • Rejection of basic computer science without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:

  • Your complex sample code would be one line in: Haskell
  • We already have an unsafe imperative language
  • We already have a safe imperative OO language
  • We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language
  • You have reinvented Lisp but worse
  • You have reinvented Javascript but worse
  • You have reinvented Java but worse
  • You have reinvented C++ but worse
  • You have reinvented PHP but worse
  • You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
  • You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:

  • You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
  • This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
  • Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.
@marcoonroad
Copy link

marcoonroad commented Oct 15, 2014

lol, can you think about add some features e.g. multi-dispatch as SQL-like ("

from function
| where args[0] = 1
| select { 1 }

") or math-like ("

F: 1 -> 1.

") (if your language lacks multi-dispatch), junctions (quantum superpositions) and named arguments/parameters?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment