ATS language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS_(programming_language)
As fast as C( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26958969/why-was-the-ats-language-dropped-from-the-computer-language-benchmarks-game https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72hmw/language_shootout_ats_is_the_new_top_gunslinger/ )
Dependent types
Safety and built-in theorem proving

What have you made in it!

Nothing?

Then fuck off

>>1
I can only see the comparison with C++. Can't really imagine it being completely different in speed/memory usage than C; maybe for some (very) specific programs.

This is interesting. It makes my job a little bit easier because I can do all this work in the same language.

>>2

le pedophile sage

1. The Language Shootout isn't representative of practical language performance because it features only non-idiomatic, convoluted, optimized-to-hell programs. Judging language performance by The Language Shootout is like saying all Americans are muscular athletic super-swimmers because Michael Phelps keeps winning the Olympics. Fuck anyone who even uses this site as an argument.

2. >>2 is right. Fuck your academic half-assed languages that look good on paper but don't lend themselves to program development. Shen what? ATS when? Mercury whose anus? Write something simple and practical like a ray tracer or a parser, write it idiomatically, then you may have some ground to boast about your new language. Simply saying spells and mantras like "Dependent types" or "Safety" is not ground for speaking at all. Fuck you >>1

Mercury whose anus indeed.

mercury this anus. *unzips anus*

>>7,8

le pedophile sage

One day ATS will kill Ada.

>>10
And Shen will totally kill Arc!!!1

>>11
what will happen to pedophiles?

What have you made in it!

Nothing?

Then fuck off

>>11
how can you kill a stillborn language?

>>14
That was the stuff of the joke, congratulations.

>>2
"Avoiding Success at All Cost"

>>6
I don't think you understand what this is. This is more than just a programming language. This is a programming language, a formal specification language and also model checking system all in one package. It's new so it's obvious that there aren't too many applications that use it yet.

If you don't like to learn it that's okay, but nobody is going to do anything practical if nobody even knows that it exists. If there's any place where this language is to be advertised, it's right here in this very forum that's dedicated to all things programming.

>>17
Why reinvent the wheel poorly when there's already SPARK/Ada?

>>18 Perhaps people don't like writing millions of lines of convoluted BDSM shit.

>>19
sounds hot

Typebondage with safewords in Spank/ADA

>>19
ML syntax is probably the worst syntax ever invented, even worse than Clojure's.

>>17
I don't believe that a language created by a single Chinaman academic can all of that in one package. When I tried to use ATS, it couldn't compile my programs because of some shitty fragile make scripts it was using. Also snake_case_is_shit and (* so are ML comments *). Documentation is virtually non-existent and nobody uses it. So yeah, you can advertise all you want, Mr. Xi, but no one's going to use your half-assed parody of a language anyway.

>>23
Judging language by its syntax? Just like Lisp?

>>22
That's a meaningless opinion that ranks among opinions like Firefox is shit, Linux is shit and Android is shit.

>>24
In the absence of other clear merits - yes.
Lisp syntax is beautiful, by the way (and I mean the real Lisp syntax, not the Clojure abomination).

>>23
So you're saying that a mathematician or computer scientist who has studied compiler theory and language grammar and formal logic is unable to use these theories together into an application that is a programming language system that can systematically check the semantics of a logical specification within a computer program? You're right, everybody knows that formal verification using computer software is not possible.

>>26

parentheses are beautiful but I don't mean those parentheses, that's an abomination

>>28
((())) is beautiful
[[[]]] is beautiful.
{{{}}} is beautiful.
{[(]}) is AAAH MUH EYES ARE BLEEDING MAKE IT STOP

>>27
Yes, I'm saying that academics are usually bad at making useable, polished products, especially lone academics who only need a proof of concept to write some papers and get paid with no interest in anyone actually using what they created.

Real-world programs showcasing strengths of ATS ITT or it didn't happen.

>>29
[] are objectively best because they don't require shift to type.

>>31
rebind keys like i did for lisping then

>>32
I'd rather change the interpret to interpret the [] parens.