Hacker News Reader

Comment by kailuowang | Hacker News Reader

I would appreciate if the home page provides the real incentive behind inventing this language. "a robust statically typed programming language where structure is not a pain" is a bit vague and not a unique thing that hasn't been achieved by other existing languages.

My current hunch is something like "let's have a static typed language with Ruby syntax," but I am really not sure.

View on HN

I also find it kind of ironic, because one would think they would achieve structure not being a pain with a solid type system, but it seems to be based on multiple inheritance, with no union types. That's fine and everything, but it's hardly going to win any medals around structuring the resulting programs.

Also, redefining classes elsewhere is cool and everything until you lose your IDE, and your productivity drops to 0 because your code isn't indexable by rationality.

> let's have a static typed language with Ruby syntax

InfraRuby (at http://infraruby.com/live) is a statically typed Ruby compiler: valid InfraRuby programs are valid Ruby programs.

The page only mentions JVM does it also compile to native binaries?

No. You could use a bytecode compiler (Excelsior JET or RoboVM, for example).

Mr. Munroe's comments on competing standards comes to mind. http://xkcd.com/927/

Good lord, this is so tired. I really don't think that Randall Monroe penned that comic so that any time anyone tried something new people could trot it out to poke fun at them for doing so. Please stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com