That reminds me that I should continue to play with

Because I havn't in a few weeks now and maybe things got better ūüėÜ ?

From my last experience with I remember that there was some discussion about "capabilities" (something like traits in Rust), but the discussion implement traits on my was that capabilities should not be implemented by the user (in general), which I couldn't understand.

I'd rather have a Rustescque functional language! Not being able to define and implement traits just sounds like another and I really don't want that.

Follow

So my ideal would be a pure functional language with traits/interfaces, ergonomics like or or , performance like because it compiles to binary with , with the "platform" approach currently has, so one can provide minimal interfaces to the OS ...

Which would make it a perfect language for and but also tooling and even websites via (if it can compile to wasm)!

· · Web · 0 · 1 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!