What do you think about the Crystal language?
It looks kinda cool, but I'm somewhat worried about the lack of Multithreading and the beta status so far.

Well, at some it will cease being beta

Ruby but a bit faster but maybe not because it's not fully done yet

It's okay I guess

Dunno. What do you think about crystal meth?

I don't think it's a good enough reason for yet another language.

Looked at it once before but it didn’t seem like it was going anywhere imo.

@AlmondSauce To be fair you can say the same thing about pretty much all hip, modern languages except Rust. They're all just "another cool language"

@12bitfloat I'd agree, at least for most of them. Some I think fulfil a genuine need or are incredibly useful - aside from Rust, Kotlin really came through as a modern, general purpose language for the JVM based on genuine developer need, and before Elm nothing sane really existed to compile decent functional stuff to Javascript.

Others however, such as Groovy, Swift, Crystal, AntLang etc. - I really don't see there's enough argument there for a totally new language.

@12bitfloat @AlmondSauce don’t forget about Go, it’s great too :D

@Bubbles Eh, definitely not my cup of tea to put it politely :P

@Bubbles Go is weird...

@iiii it is, although I enjoy it immensely

@Bubbles everyone wanks their way :D

@iiii not to say that it doesn’t have flaws, it definitely does, but it vibes with me in many ways

@Bubbles it weirded me out very much when I've tried to do something simple with it and it would not do anything at all, because it, counter intuitively, wanted to return several return values, where traditional languages return one, and the error message did not clear that at all.

@iiii yeah I can understand that, returning multiple values is weird. Although I know it’s an unpopular opinion but I don’t mind the error handling.

@Bubbles Go really has too many (deliberate) design flaws in imo. They focused too much on making it simple that they omitted many features of a proper programming language. And the things they do have I also don't like/disagree with. There's just too much opinionated, arbitrary magic going on

@Bubbles When it comes to programming languages there will always be a base level of complexity that you can't get around because it's inherent to the reality of programming itself and above that you have a complexity sweetspot.
Make it too complex and it becomes an unintuitive pain to use, that's C++.
Make it too simple and the inherent complexity of programming forces you into a bunch of ad-hoc boilerplate and code to statisfy it, ironically making the code more complex than if the language weren't too simple in the first place. That's C and that's also where I see Go

@12bitfloat what features do you think they left out that they should put in, if you don’t mind me asking

Also I understand where you’re coming from

@Bubbles Generics, user type range compatibility (using an Iterator interface), algebraic data types (to fix the semantic fallacy of returning a value and an error), some form of macros (preferably proc macros), visibility modifiers instead of naming convention magic, type safe enums (which force exhaustive matches), some form of constructors (because the zero type idiom introduces hidden invalid states -- always make invalid state unrepresentable), general attributes instead of weird field metadata strings, and well... Rust's ownership and lifetime model would be great too :P

Do not that I'm not a massive expert in Go as I've only shortly tried it out back when I was searching for a new language so this is just me looking in from the outside

@12bitfloat If it makes you feel better, theyre adding generics. https://blog.golang.org/generics-ne...

It is still kind of a young language so I forgive them for not having some features.

@Bubbles I certainly hope it makes you feel better as well