Sociopath Community

Buttered Toast said: 

I also did some querying for an optimal, single programming language.  However, I think it would be a better first stage to try and work out the best features for a particular paradigm first, but that might not be more practical than just trying to get the best out of all the possible worlds right away.

Claude Sonnet 3.7 said:

Building a Unified Language
To create a unified language incorporating these strengths:

Core Foundation:

Start with Rust's ownership model for memory safety
Add ML-family type inference for expressiveness with safety
Include pattern matching as a first-class construct


Modularity:

Support multiple paradigms through flexible syntax and semantics
Allow pure functional code with guarantees when needed
Provide OOP capabilities but discourage inheritance in favor of composition


Concurrency Model:

Adopt Erlang's actor model for distributed systems
Integrate with Rust's ownership for safe concurrent memory access
Include Go-style lightweight threads/coroutines


Developer Experience:

Focus on excellent error messages like Elm/Rust
Build a comprehensive package manager and build system
Design for gradual adoption and interoperability


Implementation Strategy:

Start with an LLVM-based compiler for performance
Design a VM for portability and dynamic features
Create progressive typing system that can be as strict or flexible as needed


Practical Considerations:

Include a foreign function interface for existing code
Provide tooling for gradual migration from other languages
Focus on compile-time guarantees while maintaining runtime flexibility



This unified language would balance the safety of Rust, the expressiveness of functional languages, the practicality of Python, and the concurrency of Go/Erlang while maintaining a coherent design philosophy rather than just being a collection of features.

 Operating systems are written in C. Hard to beat C for machine level programming. For front end stuff, hard to tell, there are so many now.

Searching for one programming tool to do all jobs is like telling a carpenter that he can only have one saw to cut wood. Cross cut, ripping, miter, chain, sawzaw. jig, hole. Not going to happen.

It's probably not worth picking apart that analogy and its incompatibility.  Convince me English isn't already kind of doing what I'm describing for humans.  ...Hmm, actually computers are already making having different languages sort of a relic of humanity, able to translate and remove the superfluous layers.  (I wouldn't argue that any of this is toward optimization, though.)

But I'll tell you the end of the story for computer languages: Wolfram Alpha.

Buttered Toast said: 

It's probably not worth picking apart that analogy and its incompatibility.  Convince me English isn't already kind of doing what I'm describing for humans.  ...Hmm, actually computers are already making having different languages sort of a relic of humanity, able to translate and remove the superfluous layers.  (I wouldn't argue that any of this is toward optimization, though.)

But I'll tell you the end of the story for computer languages: Wolfram Alpha.

 You have a point about english.

I just see two types of coding models, machine level and interface level.