WANTED: Compensated Haskell Hacker for Language Project
Hello fellow Haskellers! I have a language I would like to prototype in Haskell. It's a 'language-oriented' programming language based on Lisp, ML, and Python. It's a relatively small language, but should be powerful enough to have many of its features implemented in terms of itself (classes, actors, almost all syntax, etc.) While the project is compensated, I'm just a commercial game programmer by day and don't have a corporate budget, so part of the motivation is the joy of the project itself. Otherwise, I have a budget of $4k - $6k USD over the next several months to compensate someone to hack it up for me. I don't have much in the way of specs, and the design is ongoing (almost certainly some holes), but there is an overview of the design here - http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Prototyping-New-Language-With-Ha... I really want to churn it out as a nice working concept to prove the language design and language oriented programming is practical even for soft-real time software like console games. The project will be open source throughout its development and the language will be free to use. I really want it to take off, despite my meager resources :) Beyond that, I'm looking for charitable investors once the prototype is finished and proven. I want to find other people are so sick of writing soft-real time software in C-family languages at their work place that it's worth the donation. Perhaps there is some company who might be interested in further incubating the project if it proves commercially interesting :) I do ask for the code to be reasonably clean as I would like to be able to help once I get some time. I would be implementing the thing fully myself, but I am way too swamped at work :) Since I have to rest my hands during my off hours, I would like to do most communication by voice. Feel free to record any of the communication if you like. If anyone is interested and has the credentials to bring the project to fruition, please contact me at bryanedds@yahoo.com straight away. Thanks!
I share your dream of being able to write high-level code for soft real time software, so while I'm not interested in working on your project directly at this time, it's still in my best interest for it to be successful. My only question is this: what does your language offer that others do not with respect to soft real time systems? The language you describe in the linked forum thread looks neat, but I think I'm missing the reasoning behind its design. Why is this design beneficial for soft real time compared to other high level languages? - Jake
Hi Jake!
My only question is this: what does your language offer that others do not with respect to soft real time systems? The language you describe in the linked forum thread looks neat, but I think I'm missing the reasoning behind its design. Why is this design beneficial for soft real time compared to other high level languages?
The main thrust of the design is to provide nearly the power of Lisp and ML's semantics in a form that is syntactically palatable to the mass of intelligent industry programmers. While industry programmers typically prefer C-style languages, it's just not possible to build a C-style language with a reasonable macro development (language orientation) experience due to C's inherent syntactic complexities. Further, it seems to have been historically demonstrated that C-family programmers are not willing to make the a syntactic leap as far as say, Lisp or Ocaml. Barring the provision of yet another C-style language, there's another set of languages many C-family programmers do rather like: Ruby and Python. So by finding a direct mapping from s-expressions to a language with an feel and visual appeal similar to Python that ALSO approaches the machine efficiency of C++, I hope to create a lisp- and ML-derived language that is accessible to an audience wider than existing functional languages seem to have reached. As you can see, the design does admit some semantic compromises in the name of syntax and efficiency, but the compromise is surprisingly (at least to me) minimal. One compromise made in the name of C++ efficiency is the use of a machine word-sized default number type rather than the default number type used in lisp or Haskell. Of course, arbitrary number types can be made available naturally via a library using simple binary operation overrides, but they are not the default when you type the literal 5. I've discovered, at least to my own current satisfaction, that bringing lisp- and ML-style semantics to the masses is possible with less semantic compromises than previously seemed possible. By providing a language that industry programmers feel comfortable with, I hope to move as many of them as possible into the functional / language-oriented world. But more than that, I'm just designing the language I wish I could use everyday instead of C++ and C# :)
2011/3/29 Bryan Edds
Hi Jake!
My only question is this: what does your language offer that others do not with respect to soft real time systems? The language you describe in the linked forum thread looks neat, but I think I'm missing the reasoning behind its design. Why is this design beneficial for soft real time compared to other high level languages?
The main thrust of the design is to provide nearly the power of Lisp and ML's semantics in a form that is syntactically palatable to the mass of intelligent industry programmers. While industry programmers typically prefer C-style languages, it's just not possible to build a C-style language with a reasonable macro development (language orientation) experience due to C's inherent syntactic complexities. Further, it seems to have been historically demonstrated that C-family programmers are not willing to make the a syntactic leap as far as say, Lisp or Ocaml.
Barring the provision of yet another C-style language, there's another set of languages many C-family programmers do rather like: Ruby and Python. So by finding a direct mapping from s-expressions to a language with an feel and visual appeal similar to Python that ALSO approaches the machine efficiency of C++, I hope to create a lisp- and ML-derived language that is accessible to an audience wider than existing functional languages seem to have reached.
As you can see, the design does admit some semantic compromises in the name of syntax and efficiency, but the compromise is surprisingly (at least to me) minimal. One compromise made in the name of C++ efficiency is the use of a machine word-sized default number type rather than the default number type used in lisp or Haskell. Of course, arbitrary number types can be made available naturally via a library using simple binary operation overrides, but they are not the default when you type the literal 5.
I've discovered, at least to my own current satisfaction, that bringing lisp- and ML-style semantics to the masses is possible with less semantic compromises than previously seemed possible. By providing a language that industry programmers feel comfortable with, I hope to move as many of them as possible into the functional / language-oriented world.
But more than that, I'm just designing the language I wish I could use everyday instead of C++ and C# :)
Hi, First of all, I wish you good luck in your project. Your mail made me think of my little syntactical[0] library. It needs some love but is in principle very flexible. It makes a clear mapping between distfix expressions and s-expressions. Distfix expressions are flexible enough to accomodate for a lot of the usual constructs one can find in programming languages. Maybe you'll find it useful. Cheers, Thu [0] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/syntactical
participants (3)
-
Bryan Edds -
Jake McArthur -
Vo Minh Thu