Dao, a New Programming Language Supporting Advanced Features With Small Runtime 404
New submitter NeoHermit writes "This language (Dao) has never been mentioned on Slashdot before, but it might be interesting to many people here. As it has recently become feature-complete and just made its first beta release, it may be the right time to mention it here. Dao is an optionally-typed programming language that supports many advanced features with a small runtime. The feature list is probably as long as that of Python, but they are supported by a much smaller runtime (somewhere between Lua and Python, but closer to Lua). Besides optional typing, the other major features that worth mentioning include: built-in support for concurrent programming for multicore computers, very friendly C programming interfaces for embedding and extending, a LLVM-based JIT compiler, a Clang-based module for embedding C/C++ codes in Dao, and a Clang-based tool for automatic binding generation from C/C++ header files. You can also see many familiar features from other languages."
you had me at... (Score:1, Interesting)
This language (Dao) has never been mentioned on Slashdot before, but it might be interesting to many people here.
A pretentious name? (ears perk up) Go on...
Dao is an optionally-typed programming language
ARRRRGH! Comeon guys, type casting is so important even answers.com [answers.com] has a bloody writeup on it. Strousoup is right now spinning in his grave so furiously I'm sure it's causing a small earthquake right now on some pacific island...
that supports many advanced features with a small runtime.
Runtime? So it's like Java then... it's interpreted. Ooookay, well, I suppose runtime languages have their place amongst the honored...
The feature list is probably as long as that of Python
And already we have our first example of why type casting is important: The programmer/submitter here isn't sure what the feature list of the language is, because everything is represented as an abstract object. /snark
Built-in support for concurrent programming for multicore computers,
I'm not entirely sure what that even means. Does it support threading? Is it stackless? Are you talking about the ability to set processor affinity for a given thread or process? "concurrent programming" to me could even mean using two keyboards.
very friendly C programming interfaces for embedding and extending, a LLVM-based JIT compiler, a Clang-based module for embedding C/C++ codes in Dao, and a Clang-based tool for automatic binding generation from C/C++ header files.
So basically, your language is incomplete so you're giving people the ability to link in stuff to makeup for it. Okay, that's cool... I guess.
Well kid, I'm sorry your parents named you Dao. Like all parents, I'm sure they expect great things from you. Unfortunately, it seems you're suffering from a rare birth defect where half your brain is missing and you're a midget. You're also cojoined to your twin, who they named 'C'. Now they're going to try surgery soon to separate you from your twin bro, but I'm gonna be honest here: You're probably not going to make it. Sorry kid, tough break.
end the lambda idolotry! (Score:2, Interesting)
Have fun designing programs that manipulate massive amounts of state with functional programming style. Given that nobody has figured out how to do a first person shooter with a functional langauge, makes me suspect that they aren't the one answer to every problem. In fact even a relatively simple game is quite awkward [dadgum.com] in a functional style.
I guess you can't solve every problem with lambda calculus and retain your sanity.
Re:Do they have tail-recursion or lazy evaluation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's a reason nobody talks about it (Score:5, Interesting)
Dao (and Go) do not solve programming problems better than other mainstream alternative languages. Seriously, I looked through the list and asked myself what Dao could do that (say) C, C++, Java, Groovy, Scala, Clojure, or Haskell couldn't do, and I couldn't come up with anything.
If someone is really interested in solving programming problems using language design, I need a language that satisfies the following:
a) Object-oriented, when I want it. Not the C++ bullshit of multiple inheritance, but Java's OO model isn't bad as a start; maybe add Scala's mixins and traits as well to that.
b) Functional, when I want it. But not Scala-functional: more like Haskell or Clojure functional.
c) Strongly-typed, most of the time. When I'm solving specific domain problems, I want the type system to ensure I'm not jamming a Foo into a Bar.
d) Optionally- or non-typed, once in awhile. Sometimes I'm just writing an algorithm that should be able to deal with any sort of object and don't care what the underlying object is. Java's generics are ok, but sometimes they just get in the way.
e) Reasonable concurrency model - message passing, threads, actors, producers, consumers, event buses, etc.
f) Garbage-collected. I used to do malloc()/free() and new/delete, but I'd rather have the underlying language handle objects for me. (That isn't to say that I don't care about memory pressures - I'm ok with allocating objects once and tracking their state instead of allocate/release/garbage-collect thrashing.)
g) Proper closures and exception handling in the OO part. (Closures and monads should be part of the functional part of the language).
Note to Scala crazies: the above may LOOK like Scala, but it sure as hell isn't Scala. No one in their right mind would develop something that had to be maintained in Scala, because part (h) that I don't want is this: arbitrary operator definition and overloading. That right there makes Scala a total disaster. For an example of this, see the Lift examples.
Re:you had me at... (Score:3, Interesting)
Way to fight the chauvanistic stereotype of girl geeks as dilettantes.
I fail to see how making an educated assessment of the value of a new programming language meets the definition of a dilettante. I know of many geek girls (yes, girl comes second, we are geeks first and foremost -- pay attention Anonymous Coward, there will be a test) who know nothing of programming yet nobody would question their overall geekiness. Perhaps you're unaware that there's more than one kind of geek? I have one friend who's an art geek. She spends her days painting, sketching, and is a consumate book worm. I enjoy her company and her passion quite a bit. She has about as much computer sense though as a door mat and I have to fix or reimage her system on a seasonal basis. I don't begrudge her not knowing computers though; Not everyone can be a computer geek.
Re:you had me at... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dao is an optionally-typed programming language
ARRRRGH! Comeon guys, type casting is so important even answers.com [answers.com] has a bloody writeup on it. Strousoup is right now spinning in his grave so furiously I'm sure it's causing a small earthquake right now on some pacific island...
Do you really know what is optional typing (and type inference)? Otherwise you wouldn't be using the tiny example in that link as an argument against optional typing.
that supports many advanced features with a small runtime.
Runtime? So it's like Java then... it's interpreted. Ooookay, well, I suppose runtime languages have their place amongst the honored...
As others already pointed it out, runtime is not just for interpreted language.
The feature list is probably as long as that of Python
And already we have our first example of why type casting is important: The programmer/submitter here isn't sure what the feature list of the language is, because everything is represented as an abstract object. /snark
I don't see your logic here.
Built-in support for concurrent programming for multicore computers,
I'm not entirely sure what that even means. Does it support threading? Is it stackless? Are you talking about the ability to set processor affinity for a given thread or process? "concurrent programming" to me could even mean using two keyboards.
Seriously, what do you expect? "set processor affinity for a given thread or process"??? Maybe "on" is a better preposition than "for" here, but anyone know about concurrent programming should understand what it really means immediately regardless the preposition.
very friendly C programming interfaces for embedding and extending, a LLVM-based JIT compiler, a Clang-based module for embedding C/C++ codes in Dao, and a Clang-based tool for automatic binding generation from C/C++ header files.
So basically, your language is incomplete so you're giving people the ability to link in stuff to makeup for it. Okay, that's cool... I guess.
So in your opinion, any language that has interface to C or another language is incomplete. Do you also think any language that has external libraries is also incomplete?
It's understandable that people like to bash new languages, but if you do, please make some more solid points.
My opinion and some free unsolicited advice ;-) (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, so here is my uninformed opinion and some free unsolicited advice ;-)
First of all, some people here are just too defeatist. Yes, it looks a lot like Go and has only few exceptional features, but it's certainly not the worst programming language I've ever seen and e.g. seems to be overall better than Python - if we ignore, for the time being, the external library support which makes Python so great. I agree with others that optional typing is a bad idea, though. Many optimizations will be hard to implement in future and loose typing should be explicit (as e.g. in polymorphic types).
Since I'm sort of a hobby programming language enthusiast, working on my own toy language in my spare time, there is one annoying thing I must mention, though. Why do so many contemporary language designers choose C-style syntax and not Algol/Pascal/Ada style? Just because they know C best? All of these C-clones, each of them with their own little quirks and specialities, don't really make the syntax more compelling or easier to read. (It would be okay if they behaved exactly like C, I guess, but then they wouldn't be languages on their own.) Why not go for block-style syntax or the Python wite space route instead?
Take a look at Ada, for example. Yes, I know, the syntax is verbose and has to many double-uses of keywords. It is a bit archaic. However, on the bright side, Ada programs really are extremely readable. You can easily scan through GNAT's source code and understand how the packages work without looking at additional documentation! I'm not saying, "Hey, let's all switch to Algol-style syntax", and not everybody likes the way Python deals with white space either, but a little bit more variation would be nice.
Which brings me to another issue. If you invent a new language, please make sure twice already in the design phase that it can be optimized later. Nothing is more annoying than an overall nice language that also becomes popular, only to turn out to be basically unoptimizable later. If a function has no side effects, if a data structure is immutable, if instructions or data structure traversals can be executed in parallel, please give us a way to indicate that within the language unless it can be inferred automatically. At least in theory, a new programming language ought to be capable of being as fast as C[1], Fortran, or Ada. Otherwise you could just save yourself lots of trouble and translate it to C++ or SBCL right from the start...
Footnote [1]: To be taken with a grain of salt. Arguably, C is the the first in the list only because of extensive compiler optimizations not because of its language features.