Perhaps relevant: <a href="https://campedersen.com/loon" rel="nofollow">https://campedersen.com/loon</a><p>This looks like a really neat project/idea; seeing the road map is exciting too, nearly everything I'd want.<p>I don't love the brackets syntax, or the [op val1 val2] ([* x x]) style, but I appreciate the attempt at clarity and consistency and none of these things are dealbreakers.<p>I do wonder why they've leaned so hard into talking about the type system being out of sight. Again, not a dealbreaker, but I feel strongly that explicit typing has a place in codebases beyond "describe something because you have to".<p>Strongly typed languages strike me as providing detailed hints throughout the codebase about what "shape" I need my data in or what shape of data I'm dealing with (without needing to lean on an LSP). I find it makes things very readable, almost self-documenting when done right.<p>From their docs about their choices: "The reasoning is simple: types exist to help the compiler catch your mistakes. They do not exist to help you express intent, at least not primarily." This strikes me as unnecessarily pedantic; as someone reading more code than I write (even my own), seeing a type distinctly—particular as part of a function signature—helps me understand (or add strong context) to the original author's goal before I even get to reading the implementation.<p>I find this doubly so when working through monadic types where I may get a typed error, a value, and have it all wrapped in an async promise of some kind (or perhaps an effect or two).<p>By the same token many languages allow you to leave out type annotations where they may be simple or clearly implied (and/or inferred by the compiler), so again, I'm not understanding the PoV (or need) for these claims. Perhaps Loon simply does it better? Am I missing something? Can I write return types to stub functions?<p>From the above blog post: "That's how good type inference feels! You write code. The types are just there. Because the language can see where it's going." Again, it feels strongly geared towards a world where we value writing code over reading/maintaining/understanding code, but maybe that's just my own bias/limitations.<p>Will follow it closely.
Yeah, the idea that types exist just to help the compiler catch your mistakes shows a depressingly superficial understanding of the benefits of static typing.<p>Types exist so that the compiler can reason about your code better - but not incidentally, they also help <i>you</i> reason about your code better!<p>To wit: even when working in dynamic languages, it's often considered a good practice to write down in docstrings the types of objects a function can operate on, even without static enforcement. Thinking about types is helpful for humans, too.<p>And it's not even just a thing to help you read code in the future - types help me <i>write</i> code, because as I sit down to write a function I know the possible values and states and capabilities of the object I'm working with. In the best of cases I can analytically handle all the possible cases of the object, almost automatically - the code flows out of the structure of the type.
I think I am in love. Clojure + Rust, everything is typed, but I don't need to annotate. And algebraic effects that I really wanted to explore in Ocaml, but now can do it in language with way easier syntax. I might be missing bit of Clojure dynamic nature, but it looks like a bunch of really interesting ideas in one language.
Yeah. Clojure is by far my favorite dynamic language. But, I love static types. At a glance, a quick glance at Loon- looks like it could just flat out become my favorite language. Loon with a standard library that approaches Go’s would be :chefskiss:
Neat! I think the website could use a bit more information about how the "global" Effect handlers work, and whether it's possible to opt-in to that functionality yourself when writing Effects.<p>That being said I took a look at the roadmap and the next major release is the one that focuses on Effects, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun a tad. Maybe I'll whip this out for AoC this year!
The pattern matching example has a type Shape which is never referenced and this seems to conflict with the idea that you never write a type, am I missing something obvious?
I think they mean you never write types for your variables or functions. They don't mean you can't create types. That's the reference to Hindley–Milner type system and type inference. You don't have to say<p>x : Nat
x = 5<p>You just say x = 5<p>I personally don't like that you don't seem to be able to manually describe the type for a fn/var, because it's very useful when prototyping to write stubs where you provide the typedef but then the actual variable/function is just marked as "todo"
Very cool! I’ve been flirting with the idea of biting the bullet and moving more towards language extensions around protobuf/grpc vs just tools so it’s really great to see projects on the other side of that kind of decision shipping and what choices they made<p>Why the square brackets in particular? Notation is such an annoying part of this stuff, I’m actually leaning towards pushing a lot of structure to the filesystem
Looks great! However, the website is really slow. Every page takes several seconds to load and trying to open the reference freezes my browser.