Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
3 points by akkartik 85 days ago | link | parent

Is that a good thing, though? A classic design principle is that similar things should look similar and different things should look different. Imagine a project with both Flow and Project files. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell them apart at a glance?


2 points by breck 44 days ago | link

> A classic design principle is that similar things should look similar and different things should look different.

Agreed, but I think context eliminates such a need. If this comment were about cooking it would look the same. We reuse one writing system.

> Imagine a project with both Flow and Project files. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell them apart at a glance?

Ah, good point! So far it hasn't been a problem, but I imagine there may be issues as the number of Tree Languages (note--I took the feedback and dropped the "ETN" acronym) and combinations increase. It might emerge that there are some universal best practices so semantics won't change too markedly from one language to the next. But I think it could be that semantics vary a lot. Right now I have some languages where flow goes forwards (top down) backwards (children up), stack based, parallel, synchronous, et cetera. I personally haven't had trouble keeping them straight just knowing the context, but that is not necessarily a predictor of how it will go for other people (or even me), in the future. We shall see.

Another similar problem is when you have a file with both Flow and Project code (something that actually comes up a lot).

What happens when 2 languages use the same keyword but with different semantics and it happens that a 3rd language embeds them both? It might cause some confusion. Or even just the basic problem of doing color highlighting for one language in a node of another--how do you ensure the color schemes don't conflict? Perhaps a border or something would do the trick. Problems to solve in the future.

reply

3 points by akkartik 43 days ago | link

> If this comment were about cooking it would look the same. We reuse one writing system.

That's true, but the fact that we're both able to make analogies just suggests that analogies aren't a good defense for your system. It isn't self-evident that "eliminating different syntaxes" is always a good thing. You need to actually take the trouble to motivate it.

In my experience the hard part of dealing with polyglot systems is juggling the different semantics. Syntax is in the noise. Should it be the same or different? It just doesn't seem worth thinking about.

Don't get me wrong, I find Lisp's uniform syntax very helpful. But Lisp is helpful also because of its (relatively) uniform semantics. While adding Lisp syntax atop say Erlang seems useful, mixing LFE and regular Scheme would be a nightmare.

> What happens when 2 languages use the same keyword but with different semantics and it happens that a 3rd language embeds them both?

Yes, I can relate to this question. For example, here's a fragment from the Mu codebase where I embed tests containing Mu programs in my C++ implementation: http://akkartik.github.io/mu/html/040brace.cc.html#366. The Mu instruction is `return-if`, but because it's in a C++ file, just the `return` is highlighted. Super ugly.

My take-away from all this: polyglot systems are a bad idea. Mu's implementation being in C++ is hopefully a temporary state of affairs. We shouldn't be picking "the right tool for the job". Software is more malleable than past tools. We should be tweaking our one language to do everything the job needs.

So rather than try to come up with solutions for polyglot programming, I'd just discourage it altogether.

Edit: Heh, see slide 9 of http://dev.stephendiehl.com/nearfuture.pdf

reply