Hey! Thanks for reading! Just a reminder that I wrote this some years ago, and may have much more complicated feelings about this topic than I did when I wrote it. Happy to elaborate, feel free to reach out to me! 😄
I've mentioned that often people will often use a language to describe their new one, hoping to invoke some feeling from the reader. It's obviously done with software too, and I'd like to "verb" two particular projects attack certain software problems, and hope more software tackles similar problems.
that are unavoidable no matter what you do (all numbers are floats, strings must
be comprised of 16-bit code points...), there are also just crappy and confusing
surface pieces of the language, like the four meanings of
function-not-block scoping, and the
== operator. Furthermore, some facets
(like having to declare
var everywhere, and semicolons) pass without error or
even necessarily incorrect behavior, leaving bugs that lurk behind the curtains.
CoffeeScript approaches this in a novel way: be essentially the same
language, just remove the warts that you don't like. In CoffeeScript,
===. Undeclared variables get
vared and placed at
the top of their declaring function. It handles semicolons sensibly. If you know
just (usually) write fewer bugs since the most confusing features of the
language have been scrubbed.
And verbing it? I wish we "CoffeeScripted" more languages. C and C++ come to mind: there are a number of ways to shoot yourself in the foot that could be statically detected, or a number of legal expressions that almost never mean what the programmer meant. Yes, we have linters, but we could do better, especially since you'll want to break the rules sometimes and it's hard to tell a linter "here, I meant it."
Imagine declaring/assigning variables like in Ruby or Python, and the preprocessor
for the language includes
auto and the semicolon. Imagine having your
call-by-reference and move semantics expressions done automatically.
Forward declarations! Preprocessor guards! It'd be a bit more like Java or
Groovy, but it'd still be very much C++. If you wanted to use something beyond
the default (i.e. declaring a call-by-value function), you could just write it
in a seperate C++ file that speaks with whatever this mythical "Coffee++Script"
would talk to.
But C++ as-is is so noisy (and all the noise is there for a good reason), and I feel it'd be nice to have a simple preprocessor language like CoffeeScript to clean it up.
What it is: It should first be explicitly stated that gcc is software that's changed the world for the better by making a free, world-class compiler available and hackable to all. And it's good at what it does -- it's very reliable, and produces fast executables.
The problem wasn't so much that it failed its purpose, it's that it achieves it just well enough to leave it be. There was no reason to write a new compiler because you could just hack this one, and it works fine. But hacking gcc became difficult over time, and many static analysis tools would have been excessively difficult to implement given all the legacy.
Enter Clang. Built on LLVM, it's code is much more modular, provides a better UI (everyone has a moment when they see their first Clang errors), and more amenable to "sharing its parts" so the writers of programming tools can better leverage the compiler. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but the whole project reminds me of destructive programming.
Why would I want to "clang" a project"? Because much of my absolute favorite software, the programs that enrich my life and are hardest to pull myself apart from, are far too opaque to hack at easily, and suffer from incredible wartiness.
The biggest case for me is vim. Lord do I love vim. I never could learn to play the guitar or piano but my fingers have learned the chords, progressions, and Zen of vim to love editing text, such that I feel impaired if I'm writing in another editor.
But good lord Vimscript is an undocumented, semantically muddy mess. How do you advance from the simple act of editing text to richer features for programmers, authors, or screenwriters? How do we extend this? Some brave souls rough it out through Vimscript, and theoretically Vim is open source so you can do what you like. But Vimscript is confusing, limited, and a peek at the Vim source code shows you this is a hard mess to hack.
But here's where we can learn from Clang: re-implementation is just one part of this. But what about breaking your core work into libraries, much like Amazon does everything with services? Clang is built on LLVM, and a look at the codebase demonstrates that clang (and other compilers on LLVM) is built by attaching well-considered components.
Paul, isn't that just good, modern software design? Yes, but let's apply it retroactively, to codebases that do their job just "well enough."
I bring this up because I love software that enables Vim keybindings (such as Pentadactyl) but if I ever wanted to implement support for Vim keybindings in software of mine, I'd have to learn all of Vim's keybindings and its entire state machine, then write duplicate code to implement it. Everyone who uses Vim-like plugins in their software knows that none of them get it "just right." What if Vim could easily expose the same logic it uses to other developers?
Many large systems are structured this way -- game engines, and what I've seen from the developing Servo code. I just wish we did it in retrograde more often, like game demakes, for indispensable, old software.
Thanks for the read! Disagreed? Violent agreement!? Feel free to join my mailing list, drop me a line at , or leave a comment below! I'd love to hear from you 😄