Helix: A Modern, High-Performance Language
github.com
github.com
"Non-Nullable Types by Default: In Helix, all types are non-nullable by default, significantly reducing the risk of null-pointer errors. Helix uses a novel approach to nullable types - Questionable Types, which allows for more explicit handling of null or panicking values."
But then when you look at questionable types, it says:
"You can use a questionable type like a regular variable. If you use it in a context where a non-questionable type is required, Helix implicitly checks its validity: If the value is valid, it proceeds. If the value is null or an error, the program stops with a crash."
Is that not exactly the same behavior that Java has?
Also yeah seems like they reinvented null pointer crashes but with extra steps.
https://github.com/helixlang/helix-lang/commit/4d949efd42b8d...
Wow, these really do seem to be LLM written, and I would guess ChatGPT. This long README has a bunch of generic, redundant statements over and over again.
But also yes passing a null value into a non-questionable would lead to NPE however if the type has a questionable operator then that function would be used (like for strings, a questionable null string type is just a blank string, in which case using it with or without questionable doesn't make a difference).
Consider this Java method:
void frobnicate(bar Bar)
{
// is bar null? Who knows?
}
I’ve never heard of this language before today and don’t have an opinion on it, but I do find the Questionable Types interesting: sort of collapsing Option and Result into one very concise notation.
You get safety for the non-questionable types. But it seems like if you're going to have questionable types, you're better off not letting users silently treat them as if they aren't questionable and then risk crashing at runtime.
Still, I don't really see this going anywhere. There are already so many "slightly better C++" languages out there, e.g. D, cppfront/cpp2, Carbon, Zig and they pretty much all don't see wider adoption for the same reason. No matter how simple or ergonomic the interop with C++ is, the switching cost is still high and the benefit tends to be marginal. Almost all of them either include garbage collection or don't fully guarantee memory safety. Choosing a restricted subset of C++ and an opinionated, enforced linter & static analyzer goes a long way and gets you most of the benefits of these new languages, so organizations tend to just do that.
The exception is Rust, because in spite of all its downsides it has the killer feature of guaranteed memory safety without garbage collection, so that's the one seeing constantly increasing institutional support.
Their second milestone should show memory safety features, and AFAIK it comes up a year or two later.
These milestones will produce technology demonstrators - so there's no expectations people would be using Carbon for anything beyond small demos and maybe check if it can be integrated with their existing C++ codebases.
Then they will try to package up the language and tooling around it with these two flagship features. This is where they expect some people to use the language for real. The language will only support a subset of C++ (they haven't decided what exactly it should include), and they mentioned Rust-like subdivision into "unsafe" and "safe" Carbon. To me this all looks like even after those milestones it may take a while.
Also, while Google folks are hopeful they also donated billions to Rust to improve C++ interoperability there, too. They don't bet on one language only but rather see multiple of them develop and spread.
So, tldr: it's years and years away.
I'm not familiar with Swift though so my understanding could be incorrect.
To put it in Rust terms, the "automatic" means that Swift will insert the equivalent of calls to ".clone()" for you, whereas this is manual in Rust.
My understanding is that Rust doesn't have _automatic_ reference counting as in Swift only because it has an alternative (move), which requires the programmer to specify their intent. The principle is nevertheless the same: ensure every time a reference is copied the ref count is incremented, free only when ref count is zero, and we get temporal memory safety.
With Swift, that's not true. Sometimes you can wait for a while for the compiler to churn before it bails and tells you it can't fully infer types. As a Rust user, this is entirely unacceptable.
I would have to say, while I don't thoroughly dislike Swift, I do thoroughly dislike Xcode and the Apple ecosystem. The fact that Swift was tied so closely to iOS development for so long means it's not a language that people generally reach for. It feels more like ObjectiveC++ and a facet of the Apple ecosystem as a vehicle into iOS development.
People say that Rust's killer feature is the memory safety, but for me it's always been the ergonomics. Cargo and the painless dependency process is the real killer feature. Swift just doesn't have the same appeal, and that they are slowly getting there is a testament to Rust having already cracked the code; Swift only went fully cross platform (Windows+Linux+Mac) in 2020, so there's a lot of reputation as an Apple language to undo, as well as a lot of ground to catch up on. It's interesting to note that the ground they have to make up is pretty much the path that Rust blazed. So for a lot of the target audience of Swift, the question isn't "why Swift?", it's "why not Rust?". Really, they only good answer for Swift right now is "my target platform Apple."
For me the answer is: Ergonomics.
Swift is, IMHO, much more readable and easier to grasp than rust. You don’t have to understand low-level concepts, but can go there if you need performance.
Is anything known about the key developers? I would imagine such a project needs firepower. Rust had Mozilla's heft from the get-go. Most successful languages have another big sponsor.
While dogfooding your language is a great to stress test it, you want to make sure you're testing the right stresses -- the ones your target users will encounter. A compiler may be that thing, but chances are it is not; most people do not write nor do they aspire to write compilers. So showing off that you've written a compiler in your language doesn't attract users, because they're still left with the question "Okay, well what does it do for me?"
Another reason is that there is an infinite amount of work that goes into writing a compiler. It's really endless, especially for a small team or solo dev. If you try bootstrapping, it means essentially maintaining two compilers until you can fully bootstrap, which may never come. One compiler is really enough work.
The final reason I will say is it takes forever, and puts a total brake on new features, which can really kills project momentum. Writing the first bits of a language can really fly. But when you sit down to bootstrap, it means you're not releasing new features, but redoing everything you've already done. This leads to unfortunate messages like "We’ve now started work on the self-hosted compiler, using the current rudimentary C++-based implementation as a bootstrap.", which followers take to mean "the project is currently in hiatus for the foreseeable future until this background work on the bootstrap compiler is done". This is a critical point in language projects where the bootstrap might never be completed.
When I look at a new language project I always check out the "contributors" section. Whenever I see an initial flurry of activity from one or a few devs, followed by a taper off into nothing, I know the project is in trouble. It seems like maybe this author has hit a wall, and I would be highly suspicious of the bootstrap endeavor causing it.
Our timeline for a early working alpha with the bootstrap is Q1 2026 (or Q2) but no later.
P.S A reason why only I mainly wrote the initial compiler, and also we decided to make a new compiler is since this was a passion project, the code wasn't maintainable AT ALL, I didn't plan on anyone else working on it, the code is really bug prone C++, a lot of lines of code that make 0 sense, and no structure in the codebase. The new compiler however, we are properly structuring it, documenting it, following code guidelines, and working on it as a team as opposed to 1 man writing all the code and the rest of the team only stating ideas.
So glad to hear this. I now consider this the single most important requirement when am evaluating a new programming language.
Error handling looks well thought out as well.
Very interested in how the borrow checker logic would shape up.
If this delivers on the promises made, it would pretty much be my dream programming language.
This does not work well for FILE in C, for instance.
Seems more like something between Swift and unsafe Rust.
Just curious, what benefit OOP offers over other paradigms in AI dev?
That is good to know.
After reading though everything we've seen posted on here and reddit there's a couple things that keep coming up consistently: AMT - devs want to know more about it Vial - devs want to know more about it Helix the name - everyone thinks it overlaps with the Helix Editor Readme - Looks to generic, Afterall it was put through ChatGPT to make it have good English after a draft... Docs - Outdated and Missing Helix the logo - its too similar to the Helix Editor Our Feature set - devs think its too good to be true. Linux Support - devs think not testing Linux is a dealbreaker.
Addressing the issues: Linux - Issue is we need word and Microsoft apps for college, hence the use of Windows and MacOS, but starting now We will set up WSL to test for Linux as well. AMT - We will add a section in our docs explaining it much more in detail! Vial - Also add a section in the docs explaining it much more in detail! Helix the name - We've kept the name for over a year now, and yes Helix editor has been around longer; We will consider another name, but for the time being we will add a disclaimer. Helix the logo - We will redesign the logo to be truly unique, might take a few weeks but we will change it. Readme - We will rewrite the readme from scratch, would use AI after an initial draft but make the content not seem like trying to market the language instead show the raw technical aspects without buzz words and stuff like that. Docs - Started to rewrite the docs from scratch same thing as the Readme, will post a commit without any AI modifications first. Our Feature set - while it does seem far fetched, we have written down all of our features in MD files (internally) that outline the exact processes that we need to follow, along with the thesis and theory of them, Everything is planed out fully, we just have to implement, while saying this is easier said then done, our goal is to try to make all of the features happen, maybe a year or two down the line it should be complete (or at least a working alpha).
Thank you so much! for all the compliments and criticism, These comments do mean a, lot to us and our team we are all college students, trying really hard to get this working, our coding ability should allow us to make Helix a reality, we are trying to get better at the other aspects, such as marketing, communicating with other devs, listening to feedback, and continuously improving...
To some of us that is a major feature of Rust and Zig, but good luck.
Does the conversion happen during run-time? Isn't that going to be super expensive?
I will take an actual look into it later though, seems interesting.
I'm curious. Why do you think it is bad? What are the possible issues that this style can cause?
On a more basic level, I just don't see any good reason to put the condition in the middle.
Lisp: `(if <cond> <then> <else>)` Haskell: `if <cond> then <then> else <else>` Rust: `if <cond> { <then> } else { <else> }`
All the above read fine and normal. In the python version the order of execution is different then the left-to-right reading order.
It's not like it's a fatal flaw for a language to do it like Python. But it is just silly IMO. My POV is that I actually really like if-expressions, but hate the condition-in-the-middle syntax, so I tend to avoid it unless it's really short. When code changes slightly and becomes longer I'd rather not have to always double take if this now should change to an if-statment or to an expression etc.
Oof! I can see how that can get really messy really fast. Though I wonder how much of it is the language's fault as it is the programmer's. I used to tell my students to avoid trying to be too clever with the source code. Source is meant for humans to read. Leave the cleverness to the interpreter.
> On a more basic level, I just don't see any good reason to put the condition in the middle.
Thinking about it again, I think I understand why the language designers chose that order. They were trying to make it make it more readable by following the structure of the English language. "<Buy a steak> if <the butchers are open>. Otherwise <get some salmon>".
The problem here is that programmers are more accustomed to the natural and somewhat obvious order that every other programming language follows. They also wouldn't have expected some people to abuse it by nesting it.
I actually like the Haskell syntax more because it's looks nicer when formatted in multiple lines:
-- Haskell:
-- single line
if ... then ... else ...
-- multiline
if ...
then ...
else ...
// Rust:
let result = if ... {
...
} else {
...
};
// or, 4 lines but less common:
let result = match ... {
true => ...,
false => ...,
};
# Python:
# you have to read "from the middle out" to read with the order of execution
x = a() if b() else c()
I might also consider asking Chris Lattner (Mojo language). They did use that syntax in Mojo, because it is made to be a superset of Python. But I remember hearing him say he really disliked it.