Small languages take it as a mark of pride to move as much as possible into libraries :) The pitch is that the language is powerful, and nothing shows that like language features as libraries.
I was very proud in Wart that multi-branch ifs were a library feature. And check out this quote in a blog post about Forth:
: ( 41 word drop ; immediate
( That was the definition for the comment word. )
( Now we can add comments to what we are doing! )
I disagree with your vision for templates. If you just want something that behaves like tables, why not just use tables? A helper that fills in default values would be pretty easy to write.
Think about the use case of news.arc. There's a list of 'objects' that need to be serialized to disk and unserialized from disk. What should happen if you change the default for a template in code? Should the default update transparently for existing objects? If so, you need some way to distinguish tables that were generated by templates. Which implies something that manages them throughout their life cycle.
>Small languages take it as a mark of pride to move as much as possible into libraries :)
Yeah, I've seen projects that show off the power of a language by doing "x in < 100 lines" that just don't count a remote API call with half a million LOC running on a server or something ;) But with language features like macros and templates that have become ubiquitous, I feel like it's kind of cheating not to just fold them into arc proper.
But that's just me... one thing I've learned being here is that I seem to flow against the culture more than with it, so I can just agree to disagree.
> If you just want something that behaves like tables, why not just use tables?
They are tables, that's what's frustrating. They're tables with metadata. From what I can tell reading earler posts about templates, they used to be something that behaves like tables. Interop between forum data and Racket (and any code where tables are expected) is awkward because that incompatibility has to be worked around, resulting in extra code and extra complexity. Templates need a separate API despite having the same behavior as tables.
>If so, you need some way to distinguish tables that were generated by templates. Which implies something that manages them throughout their life cycle.
Fair enough. But why is it necessary to change their type to do so? Why not make this a feature of tables as a whole, if it's useful? Or tag tables in a way that doesn't change their type, if that's possible?
I understand that tradeoffs have to be made and I'm not trying to be cantankerous or dismiss the value of anyone's work, and no, I couldn't do better myself (yet), which is why I'm commenting on it it rather than making a PR. I'm just wondering if this is the best possible implementation of the concept, given how often I and other people seem to run into issues with it.
Don't worry about sounding dismissive, I totally understand where the questions are coming from.
Tables and objects feel like separate concepts, and they have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and one doesn't subsume the other. To me it seems obvious that if we want to have both, we need them to have different types.
For example, sometimes you want the 'dynamic' ability to set arbitrary keys of metadata on a thing. Sometimes you want the same operation to be an error, by providing a schema. How would a single type do both? No language does so, to my knowledge.
Things should have the same type when they have compatible behavior. When they are incompatible, they shouldn't.
Supporting helpers like len and keys may well still make sense. And as the original story did, this is easy to do.
But in general, having incompatible types easily share functions without sharing too much is an open problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem A language can easily add a method to many types, or add a new type to many methods. But we don't yet know how to achieve both sides.
And honestly, I think the expression problem isn't important. It doesn't take too much code per method/type. And making it easier just encourages large, bloated codebases.
> ...given how often I and other people seem to run into issues with it.
One thing that might be useful here is a list of issues people have encountered with templates. Maybe we should create a wiki page on GitHub and add to it every time an issue comes up. Then we can have a big-picture view of them and a sense of how many are things people need to learn about Arc, and how many are bugs to be fixed.
I believe Anarki behaves exactly the same as Arc's intent when it comes to templates. The changes that I made here seemed strictly superior to the buggy implementation upstream. But if you disagree you should absolutely feel free to just revert the commits and go back to Arc behavior. I don't use Arc anymore, so my opinions are extremely weakly held, you don't have to bother persuading me. Or, if you have some other specific issue in mind, I'd be happy to be persuaded that I'm wrong.
"But in general, having incompatible types easily share functions without sharing too much is an open problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem A language can easily add a method to many types, or add a new type to many methods. But we don't yet know how to achieve both sides."
I'm trying to follow, but I think you and I must have different understandings of the expression problem. That article lists several known solutions to the expression problem. The solution Anarki uses is `defextend`.
What do you mean by "sharing too much"?
Is Anarki's `defextend` technique already encouraging a bloated codebase, or is there some other technique you're thinking of that would do that?
Yeah, I suppose you could say the problem is 'solved'. I think of it as a trade-off with costs. We don't know how to achieve zero cost.
For example, I absolutely agree with you that 2 lines per method to extend every table method to some new type constitutes a solution for us. But if we had a thousand such types and a thousand such methods, it may seem like less of a solution. But then `defextend` would be the victim rather than cause of bloat.
Ah, you're imagining us having to write and maintain 1000×1000 individual `defextend` forms someday? Yeah, that does seem like a problem that would not feel solved once we got to it. :-p
I don't think that aspect of the expression problem is solvable in a language design. Instead, it's an ongoing conversation in the community. Sometimes the intent of one feature and the intent of another feature interact, leading people to do a nonzero amount of work to figure out the intent of the two features put together. That work is an essential part of what the community is trying to accomplish together, so it's a cost that can't be eliminated. The intent has to be reflected in the code somewhere, so there will be a nonzero amount of code that serves feature-coordinating purposes.
Regardless, I'm optimistic that although the amount of code will be nonzero, it'll still have a manageable size. To the extent we have any kind of consistency around these feature interaction decisions, those consistent principles can develop into abstractions. The only way we'll have 1000×1000 individual intersections to maintain is if we as a community culture are already maintaining 1,000,000 compelling and distinct justifications for them. :)
I haven't read any more than a few papers on it, and maybe only one of those in depth (which I'll mention below). Mostly I'm going by forum threads, wiki articles, and the design choices certain languages make (like Inform's multimethods and Haskell's type classes).
As far as I understand the history, Philip Wadler's work basically defined the strict parameters of the expression problem and explored solutions for it. Separate compilation and the avoidance of dynamic casts were big deals for Wadler for some reason.
That work was focused on Java, where it's easy to define new classes that implement existing interfaces but impossible to implement new interfaces on existing classes.
The solution I'm most familiar with for Java-style languages is the use of object algebras, as described in Oliveira and Cook's "Extensibility for the Masses: Practical Extensibility with Object Algebras" (https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~wcook/Drafts/2012/ecoop2012.pdf). In this approach, when you extend the system with a new type, you define a new interface with a generic type parameter and a factory method for building that type, and you have that interface inherit all the existing factory methods. So you don't have to solve the unsolvable task of implementing a new interface for an existing class, because you're representing your types as type parameters and methods, not simply as classes.
So I think the main subject of research was how best to represent an extensible program's types and functions in a language like Java where the most obvious choices weren't expressive enough. I think it's more of a "how do we allow extensions to be made at all" problem than a "how do we make all the extensions maintainable" problem.
But then, I've really barely scratched the surface of the research, so I could easily be missing stuff like that.
> ... with language features like macros and templates that have become ubiquitous, I feel like it's kind of cheating not to just fold them into arc proper.
Cheating how?
It's totally fine to move something into arc.arc if you want to do that. It's always felt like a non-existent distinction in my mind whether something is under arc.arc or libs/. Is Anarki all language or all standard library? Depends on how you look at it. Why does it matter?
> But that's just me... one thing I've learned being here is that I seem to flow against the culture more than with it, so I can just agree to disagree.
This doesn't feel like a disagreement, more like a language barrier. If I understood better I might know whether I agree or not.
