11 mo. ago • 86%

Unison | A friendly, statically-typed, functional programming language from the future · Unison programming language

www.unison-lang.org Unison | A friendly, statically-typed, functional programming language from the future · Unison programming language

A friendly programming language from the future.

43 comments

helloWorld : '{IO, Exception} () helloWorld _ = printLine "Hello World"

I wouldn't call it friendly.
65
- Brackets and parens flipped is an instant no thank you. Bad design
  
  4
  
  Although, i would agree with it not necessarily being "friendly", since its a drastically different syntax than many beginners would be used to, the brackets and parenthesis here are not what you think they are.
  
  Unison is a language in the style of Haskell, F#, Purescript, Elm, etc. So that first line is actually type annotations.
  
  In Haskell, this would just be helloWorld :: IO () , meaning a function named main with no arguments and produces what is essentally a potentially-unsafe IO action with a Void return (the empty parenthesis () ).
  
  Here in Unison they call the bracket part "abilities" or something. Its saying the same thing as Haskell, but being more explicit in saying it can raise an exception.
  
  7
  
  It’s not parenthesis (in the PEMDAS sense), it’s the unit type and it’s normally expressed like that. If you’re not familiar with type systems, it’s the typing equivalent of void.
  
  1
  
  What do you mean by flipped? Parentheses seem to group expressions like in most languages.
  
  1
Oh, it's weird ugly Haskell!

... I can write weird, ugly Haskell in Haskell, though.

47
- Compiler, give me all the language extensions you have. Wait, wait. I'm worried what you just heard was, "Give me a lot of language extensions." What I said was, "Give me all the language extensions you have." Do you understand?
  
  8
Literally the opposite of friendly. Already in the hello world you have two imports for extremely basic functionality (why should I have to import the ability to throw exceptions??) and a completely enigmatic symbol ' that apparently has a significant function.

A "friendly" programming language should be readable without knowing esoteric symbols.

Really got my hopes up with that headline that it'd be a python-level intuitive-to-read language with static typing.

35
- What you expected sounds more like what nim offers.
  
  9
  
  python-level intuitive-to-read language with static typing
  
  Agreed, this is exactly Nim
  
  5
  
  Thanks I'll check it out
  
  1
- There are no imports, these are type annotations
  
  8
  
  Do I really have to declare that something requires exceptions?
  
  -4
V disappointed upon realizing this is not, as I initially read, satirically-typed

13
- Time for a Java fork: Jaja
  
  2
Unison stores code in a database.

🫣🤨

13
If I may propose a parallel to Betteridge's law of headlines:

Anything "of the future" is doomed.

8
This looks like the opposite of friendly to me. Is it supposed to be targeted towards cloud computing or web apps? I don’t really understand what its ideal use case is.

7
There take on what they call capabitilites is very interesting. Basically anything that would make a function non-pure seems to be declared explicitely.

A computational effect or an "effectful" computation is one which relies on or changes elements that are outside of its immediate environment. Some examples of effectful actions that a function might take are:

writing to a database

throwing an exception

making a network call

getting a random number

altering a global variable
7
The distributed computing aspect is very interesting, but the documentation is a mess. I applaud trying to use different and understandable terms than Haskell and other functional languages (monad, monoids, functors, applicative functor, etc.), but the examples are too verbose.

Concerning distributed computing, writing code that seemingly has no boundaries would be a major step forward for web development. Having to split models between client and server, come up with an API that follows some convention, find a solution for client-library generation, and so much more, is tedious, repetitive, and error-prone. Having most of that handled and having blurred boundaries would make writing web applications pleasurable again.

At the moment, unison looks like an iteration on the right path, but there is a lot of work to do in making it accessible and understandable.

6
"Capabilities" is the new "Functional Programming" of decades prior,

Scala is also expanding in this area via the Caprese project: https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/experimental/cc.html and it promises Safe Exceptions, Safe Nullability, Safe Asynchronicity in direct style/without the "what color is your function" dilemma, delineation of pure vs impure functions, … even Rust's borrow checker (and memory guarantees) becomes a special case of Capabilities.

I believe this is a major paradigm shift, but the ergonomics have yet to be figured out and be battle-tested in the real world. Ultimately, like for Functional Programming Languages (OCaml, F#, Haskell, …) I don't expect pionniers like Unison/Koka/Scala to ever become mainstream, but the "good parts" to be ported to ever the more complex and clunky "general purpose" programming languages (or, why I love Scala which is multiparadigm and still very thin/clean at its core).

5
- It's not really fair to state that functional languages aren't battle tested or imply they aren't useful in real world problem solving, Erlang/Elixir prove that.
  
  2
  
  functional languages aren’t battle tested or imply they aren’t useful in real world problem solving
  
  Yup, I never said that, though? What I was about was to draw a parallel between functional programming languages and explorations from several decades ago vs the new languages and explorations going into effect typing/capabilities programming now (and the long way ahead for those).
  
  What I find interesting is that those pioneering FP languages never came to top the popularity chart, implying that I'm not expecting Unison to be different (but the good parts might make it into Java/C#/Python/… many years from now).
  
  2
- I think that when it comes to functional programming with effect systems, unison is currently the closest to showing how it is actually done. Koka and languages like Effekt are of course very nice, but they don't show much going for them besides the example nondeterminism and exception effect. Verse, that language that was going to be used as Fortnite's scripting language, also plans on adding these effect systems a la Koka.
  
  Overall, I think one of 2 things will happen:
  
  unison will slowly gain more and more adoption and grow out to become a formidable niche language
  
  Verse will blow unison out of the water and everyone who once even considered unison will be moving to Verse instead
  
  0
  
  unison is currently the closest to showing how it is actually done
  
  What makes you say that? As far as I'm aware, even the theoretical soundness of it isn't a done deal (this is a harder nut to crack than e.g. rust's borrow checker)
  
  Overall, I think one of 2 things will happen:
  
  In this niche, perhaps, I don't believe any of those will gain mainstream adoption (though I hope I'm wrong)
  
  1
I tried to get into this language about 6 months ago and lets just say it was pure pain. Trying to make anything simple for learning was just a mess. Nearly no support from editors(Apart from VSCode but that does not count). And Documentation was overwhelming. It may be useful in some cases but due to its sheer complexity(I did not even managed to create a simple calculator) i dont think it would a big language.

Edit: typos

3
This hurts my eyes to look at

2
Some of the solutions it claims to provide would be genuinely great. I can't tell if it delivers. It definitely looks pre-alpha stage. I really hope it's not locked-in to their cloud platform.

2
Looks intriguing, reading a bit ... some concepts look like they came from Nix

2
That looks like line noise to me, but then again you get over syntax pretty quickly.

1
Bruh this looks like gibberish ong

-4

You've viewed 43 comments.