c355e3b has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Perelandric has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
montanonic has joined #ponylang
graaff has joined #ponylang
<doublec>
How does one preview changes made to the tutorial?
montanonic has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
<SeanTAllen>
you can get a general idea using any markdown renderer @doublec. Beyond that, gitbook has an editor that will allow you to preview things.
c355e3b has joined #ponylang
gsteed has joined #ponylang
jemc has joined #ponylang
wizeman has joined #ponylang
unbalancedparen has joined #ponylang
unbalancedparen has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
trapped has joined #ponylang
Perelandric has joined #ponylang
tm-exa has joined #ponylang
<Perelandric>
In standard libary docs, should words that reference existing identifiers in the code be surrounded by backticks?
<Perelandric>
I see it both ways and don't see any mention in the CONTRIBUTING guide.
tm-exa has quit [Excess Flood]
trapped has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
trapped has joined #ponylang
<Perelandric>
Seems like the backticks are pretty consistently applied, so I'll consider it implicitly required as matching other style.
<SeanTAllen>
Perelandric: I think that would be a good idea. I just merged you commit. Can you add a note about using backticks for identifiers in Docstrings as being standard in the contributing guide? Thanks!
<Perelandric>
SeanTAllen: Yep, will do shortly
<SeanTAllen>
thanks @Perelandric
montanonic has joined #ponylang
Matthias247 has joined #ponylang
graaff has quit [Quit: Leaving]
nixos has joined #ponylang
<nixos>
Hi
<SeanTAllen>
hello
<nixos>
I am a bit interested in pony =). Actually I am interested in programming languages that ensure correctness of programs in compile-time... therefore functional programming is usually in my focus. I was excited about rust and I still am but pony also suggests really cool critical-safety features. Do you thin that pony can provide the safety guarante
<nixos>
es that introduce languages like rust, haskell, idris, elm etc.?
<nixos>
do you think*
<nixos>
I am not speaking about right now. The ponylang will be pre 1.0 for quite a while, I understand that. So in future there is a chance to have such a system that will provide what it promises and what other languages also suggest for writing safe software. I just asking is it planning to be in the leage of languages I listed above? I shouldn't have m
<nixos>
entioned elm or purescript... and idris is also far from being complete and production ready.
<nixos>
I also understand that we are talking about object-oriented programming. Not functional.
<nixos>
Btw, you work is very much appreciated.
<SeanTAllen>
Formal proofs and proof that they were implemented correctly is the goal.
<SeanTAllen>
We dont really care about FP and OOP distinction. We are trying to create a language designed for correctness, performance and getting stuff done.
<SeanTAllen>
In this way, I think that Pony has the most in common with Rust of the languages that you have mentioned. And it would be interesting to try rewriting the parts of the Pony runtime that can't be written in Pony in Rust instead of C
<nixos>
Thanks for the answer. You did give me what I wanted to know about safety and correctness. I know about your goal concerning performance. And the question about rust (if you want to use it for anythinging ponylang you telepathically
<nixos>
sorry... my last message was sent accidentally before it was complete
<SeanTAllen>
The introduction to the pony tutorial contains the Pony philosophy and expands on what I said. http://tutorial.ponylang.org
<nixos>
and the question about rust: if you want to use it for anything in ponylang you telepathically predicted and answered =). I have also a question about how composable and scalable you plan to make ponylang? It isn't mentioned in anywhere in pony philosophy or I haven't been attentive enough.
<SeanTAllen>
what do you mean by composable? what do you mean by scalable?
<nixos>
Yeah, my question was too vague... When I was speaking about scalability I did mean if it will allow writing code with minimal or no degradation in performance when parllalization are increased in proportion to input data or complexity of the problem. When I mentioned compositionality -- does pony favors inheritance or object composition, how easy
<nixos>
will it be to write reusable code and make refactoring of programs a nice experience.
<nixos>
Strange meanings I put into compositionality and scalability XD, sorry
<nixos>
Anyways, thanks for you time and answers, SeanTAllen. I really hope pony will become something big and popular.
<SeanTAllen>
Can you give an example of a language you think is scalable vs a couple you think aren't nixos?
<SeanTAllen>
As to the composition, that is covered in the tutorial. There is no inheritance in Pony, I'd suggest checking out the tutorial.
<nixos>
Python, Ruby, Golang is not scalable (Ruby and Python are generelly considered so...) and erlang, elixir, scala, haskell, rust are scalable
<nixos>
I have a feeling it's more a rumor-based that scientific approach though XD
Matthias247 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jemc has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<SeanTAllen>
why is golang not scalable and haskell is?
<SeanTAllen>
this also depends on what scalable means in some ways. if your scalable is high throughput per node and computational speed, erlang is going to struggle and golang might do better.
<SeanTAllen>
outside of Ruby and Python having a global interpreter lock, what makes them not scalable?
<SeanTAllen>
I dont really know, I guess what scalable means even from that.
<SeanTAllen>
Pony is designed to be a high performance language. I think that meets your definition of scalable but I can't say for sure.