This is an awesome achievement. I am not so sure how you made it 4x slower than C … since it strikes me that you have 1:1 mapping to asm, perhaps vector benchmarks are unfair for this kind of comparison.
To those who criticize use of LLM in projects like yours, I demur - where there are productivity gains to be had, LLMs can make small niche FOSS projects like yours more viable and less drudgery.
I prefer a concise language btw:
say “hello, raku”;
say (0, 1, *+* ... *)[10];
This is more by way of saying let 1000 flowers bloom.
I find the goals of explicitness and maintainability to be really pitched to my current taste. From a quick view it looks like the syntax is approaching a local maximum for conforming to expectations and not sacrificing the explicitness sought.
As the developer, where do you land on meta-programming for the language? I applaud the straight up nature of ‘the battery will never be included’ and the reminder to consider the possibility of a feature being a library instead of a syntax or language feature. I certainly don’t think meta-programming is essential, but the ability can contribute to the ease of use for library code.
And I’ll ask now since it always comes up, where does Mach stand on ‘advanced’ type theory uses for ‘low-level’ programming? I noticed the admonition that safety is the developers job which is sure to bring some ‘heat’ from the memory-safety-is-table-stakes crowd, in light of that, where does Mach stand regarding ways to ensure ‘safety’?
Quite impressive to develop so much without turning to LLVM. But it’s unclear to me from the docs the value prop of why developers would want to use Mach instead of Go or C.
That said, it seems pretty damned impressive to me that mach is only four times slower than C, particularly since you've only worked on it for two years.
I like the syntax. The example code and a couple files in src I looked at were all easy to read.
Archiving that without the behemoth of LLVM is really impressive! On the other hand, there are Lisps—with all their dynamic wishy-washiness—that archive similar performance.
This looks really nice, great work so far! I see a macOS backend is still in development. I'd like to try the language out on macOS, so if I find the time I'll try to pitch in!
This is an awesome achievement. I am not so sure how you made it 4x slower than C … since it strikes me that you have 1:1 mapping to asm, perhaps vector benchmarks are unfair for this kind of comparison.
To those who criticize use of LLM in projects like yours, I demur - where there are productivity gains to be had, LLMs can make small niche FOSS projects like yours more viable and less drudgery.
I prefer a concise language btw:
This is more by way of saying let 1000 flowers bloom.(The main strength of Raku is its built in Grammars https://slangify.org)
I find the goals of explicitness and maintainability to be really pitched to my current taste. From a quick view it looks like the syntax is approaching a local maximum for conforming to expectations and not sacrificing the explicitness sought.
As the developer, where do you land on meta-programming for the language? I applaud the straight up nature of ‘the battery will never be included’ and the reminder to consider the possibility of a feature being a library instead of a syntax or language feature. I certainly don’t think meta-programming is essential, but the ability can contribute to the ease of use for library code.
And I’ll ask now since it always comes up, where does Mach stand on ‘advanced’ type theory uses for ‘low-level’ programming? I noticed the admonition that safety is the developers job which is sure to bring some ‘heat’ from the memory-safety-is-table-stakes crowd, in light of that, where does Mach stand regarding ways to ensure ‘safety’?
Quite impressive to develop so much without turning to LLVM. But it’s unclear to me from the docs the value prop of why developers would want to use Mach instead of Go or C.
I haven't ever made a low level language.
That said, it seems pretty damned impressive to me that mach is only four times slower than C, particularly since you've only worked on it for two years.
I like the syntax. The example code and a couple files in src I looked at were all easy to read.
Archiving that without the behemoth of LLVM is really impressive! On the other hand, there are Lisps—with all their dynamic wishy-washiness—that archive similar performance.
What about safety? Does the language allows shooting the leg? Does it have safe/unsafe code separation?
Can you elaborate more on NO external dependencies?
This looks really nice, great work so far! I see a macOS backend is still in development. I'd like to try the language out on macOS, so if I find the time I'll try to pitch in!
fully self hosted without any external dependencies is incredibly impressive, amazing work
Thank you. Took a long... long time to get it to even this stage, and there's so much more left to do.
> Contributors: @claude
Is it yet another LLM-generated project with little human-written code?
See also https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) /s
It is going to be awful confusing if Apple starts using Mach the language.