Only glanced through the paper on mutable value semantics (MVS). Which appears to be the differentiator of this from Rust.
The claim is that MVS enables mutable operations safely without the complexity of Rust - but still high performance.
“Mutable value semantics (MVS) sits at third point in the
design space where both goals are satisfied and mutation is
supported, without the complexity inherent to flow-sensitive
type systems. The key to this balance is simple: MVS does not
surface references as a first-class concept in the programming
model. As such, they can neither be assigned to a variable nor
stored in object fields, and all values form disjoint topological
trees rooted in the program’s variables”
These small proof of concept projects just go to show how fundamentally important are projects such as GCC and LLVM, which considerably lowered the barrier to entry of monumental tasks such as developing a programming language that targets basically all platforms under the sun.
If only mutable value semantics are allowed, then how can you represent an object graph with circular references (let’s say HTML DOM, for example) while still allowing modifying the objects?
Seems like this would be very difficult to work with in practice.
It is still very young and I don’t yet see any advantages over Rust, except that they want to have out of the box interoperability with C++. Let’s see where they are in 3 years or so.
All I see is another wannabe generic purpose and C++ (and Rust? Already?) replacement. I’m not saying they shouldn’t try, but a lot have already and it’s pretty tough. C alternatives like Zig and Nim don’t seem to have taken off, Vala either.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
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
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
Only glanced through the paper on mutable value semantics (MVS). Which appears to be the differentiator of this from Rust.
The claim is that MVS enables mutable operations safely without the complexity of Rust - but still high performance.
“Mutable value semantics (MVS) sits at third point in the design space where both goals are satisfied and mutation is supported, without the complexity inherent to flow-sensitive type systems. The key to this balance is simple: MVS does not surface references as a first-class concept in the programming model. As such, they can neither be assigned to a variable nor stored in object fields, and all values form disjoint topological trees rooted in the program’s variables”
These small proof of concept projects just go to show how fundamentally important are projects such as GCC and LLVM, which considerably lowered the barrier to entry of monumental tasks such as developing a programming language that targets basically all platforms under the sun.
Kudos GCC and LLVM.
Agreed, extraordinary tools.
These things are popping up like Javascript frameworks recently. And ironically enough those seem to have slowed down.
If only mutable value semantics are allowed, then how can you represent an object graph with circular references (let’s say HTML DOM, for example) while still allowing modifying the objects?
Seems like this would be very difficult to work with in practice.
The link you want: https://www.val-lang.dev/
Not to be confused with these:
https://vale.dev/
https://vala.dev/
Thanks. I really thought it was about vale since I assume they are both pronounced the same way.
I pronounce them as:
Vale would rhyme with “bail”
But Val would be like the first syllable of “value”
It is still very young and I don’t yet see any advantages over Rust, except that they want to have out of the box interoperability with C++. Let’s see where they are in 3 years or so.
All I see is another wannabe generic purpose and C++ (and Rust? Already?) replacement. I’m not saying they shouldn’t try, but a lot have already and it’s pretty tough. C alternatives like Zig and Nim don’t seem to have taken off, Vala either.