by m90 on 1/12/25, 7:50 AM with 38 comments
by evomassiny on 1/14/25, 11:17 AM
by openrisk on 1/14/25, 8:35 AM
by rurban on 1/14/25, 7:05 AM
https://github.com/douglascrockford/Misty There's only the spec and parser yet: https://mistysystem.com/doc/road_ahead.html
Giving that he was at same state a year ago also, I see not much progress
by macintux on 1/14/25, 6:02 AM
https://lobste.rs/s/r8vitn/misty_programing_language_from_cr...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38820305
There are a few older discussions on HN, but none with more than single digit comments.
by swiftcoder on 1/14/25, 10:23 AM
The landing page itself conveys zero information, and when I click into the Introduction, it's almost entirely dedicated to a particularly persnickety whitespace standard, and the grammar rules for parsing comments and identifiers. This is not really helping me understand what the language is about...
Between that and the odd jab at Javascript assignment operators, I have the sense that the author is more interested in grinding axes than in explaining.
by thyrsus on 1/15/25, 2:13 AM
by dustingetz on 1/14/25, 11:00 AM
by faraaz98 on 1/14/25, 10:02 AM
by cosmic_quanta on 1/14/25, 1:03 PM
In this day-and-age, dynamic programs should be considered insecure (in the broad sense) by design. There have been lots of efforts in the past ~15 years to make distributed systems more robust (e.g. Cloud Haskell [0], choreographic programming [1]).
The term "secure" as used here is quite specific, used in reference to a capability model. This is quite nice and innovative. However, static typing and capabilities need not be mutually exclusive: capabilities can be modeled at the type level using algebraic effects [2].
[0]: https://simon.peytonjones.org/haskell-cloud/
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choreographic_programming