A few good ideas in programming languages
prydt.xyz
prydt.xyz
(But it's possible that even less people ever wrote Eiffel than D, so, who knows)
I've only played with it 20+ years ago (a colleague was one of the few practitioner) and I don't remember EiffelStudio being _that_ terrible (it has a class browser that was not that much more horrible than Eclipse at the time) - but again, I only dabbled.
Now, I have to agree that the way they market the IDE as the best thing since bread came baked is kinda cringy..
Nice language, but seriously cursed by unusable tooling.
It's very confusing name for this feature. It suggest that some sort of borrowing takes place and that it's just an optional check, which isn't the case. It should be named something like "enforced static usage analysis" instead.
In my programming language I have similar mechanism. But it isn't just checking, since it affects code generation by tracking which variables are still in use and which can be destroyed.
That's the problem. Once I had a tricky case, where I locked a mutex in a match expression only to read a single field to match from the mutex contents. In one of branches of the match expression I locked this mutex once again and got a deadlock. Rust compiler wasn't smart enough to realize that the temporary variable for the mutex lock object should be destroyed earlier (it's no longer needed). So, I needed manually reading the field I need into a named variable to eliminate this deadlock.
A more advanced temporaries lifetime analysis would solve problems like described above, but it means basically duplicating a lot of stuff which is already done in the borrow checker (which runs as an afterpass).
fn main() {
let mut x = 42;
let y = &x;
println!("{y}");
let z = &mut x;
}
However values whose types have Drop are another matter. They are treated as if there's an explicit call to their drop function at the end of their lexical scope which pins their lifetime. This is intentional and desirable precisely because of the guard pattern (like for mutexes).
If you didn't have that guarantee, at worst your mutex's guard object would be immediately dropped because it's never referenced after it's created, or at best it would be very tricky to understand what the protected critical region is.
For named local variables it's a different story. They should remain alive until the end of their lexical scope. But for unnamed temporaries created in expressions different rules should apply - as soon as there is no reference to such temporary, it should be destroyed.
https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2023/03/15/tem...
Typically, a temporary's lifetime is bounded by the statement it is in, but for the subject of a match, this extension overlaps with all its arms even if the temporary borrow is not used after the subject is evaluated (i.e. you borrowed, you read and copied a field out of the borrow).
The issue seems to be that this is a syntactic transformation, but the expected behaviour requires type information, so you can tell whether to extend the temporary's lifetime by whether that lifetime leaks the immediately containing scope.
This is kind of similar to how type parameter unification in Hindley-Milner works. There's even an analogy made between the two things here:
https://okmij.org/ftp/ML/generalization.html#gen-mismanageme...
No, I don't suggest it, but criticize it. Rust performs its checking as a separate step after actual compilation, which sometimes leads to strange behavior (like borrow errors are shown only after actual compilation errors). I prefer an approach which is integrated with other language mechanisms.
> It's still WIP but in my side project I haven't found cases that can't be handled yet.
It's generally a good idea to write such an analyzer, but I doubt it can be useful without proper integration with the language itself (with huge semantics changes). If it's too strict, it will reject perfectly fine code, but otherwise it will catch only the most obvious errors and approve code having more complex memory bugs.
So projects like mypy or sorbet aren't useful because they aren't properly integrated?
It does. A value is passed by reference, borrowing it from the owner.
> and that it's just an optional check
I don't see how the word "check" implies that it's optional.
I'm really interested in programming language design and ergonomics. What niche PL features would you like to see have more adoption?
I'm also a fan of effect systems, although I haven't used them as much. Having an IO type in Haskell is great, but the ergonomics aren't (among other things, you get async-like function coloring). Effects seem like a much nicer, more composible way to get the same benefits.
Exceptions allow more flexibility in separating the success-case program flow from the error-case program flow, compared to return codes or union return types. Unchecked exceptions, however, have the same drawbacks as dynamic typing does. Checked exceptions are the static-typing equivalent.
This makes it easier to split raw inputs from validated inputs and delimiting where they are used in the code.
I find they enable you, your consumers, IDEs, agents, etc understand the contracts of a method far faster, as it means you don't actually have to read the full method body. If the pre condition is correct and the post condition fails then you can be fairly sure the bug report goes to whoever owns that method, as either the precondition is wrong or the method is wrong.
I'd love to see a language whose pitch is that they have very next level stdlibs builtin. Effect for example is basically a mini stdlibs unto itself. It would be amazing to see such a principled deliberate craft applied to a language. Scope, layers etc etc etc etc: make visible, make first-class the actual pieces of computing, make them part of the language, explicitly modelled.
I'm also super excited for Zena, which just got announced yesterday! A typescript alike that compiles to wasm, and which really leans in to modern wasm, such as gc, wasi. A language that sits well at the cross-roads, that is excellent glue, that runs anywhere, that bridges other languages, is very compelling. https://justinfagnani.com/2026/09/09/zena-a-new-wasm-first-p...
At this point I think we have good solutions for expressing pretty much all the most common program semantics, but there’s no language that brings them all together under a unified syntax, tooling, etc.
What if you pass a reference and mutate the object inside the function?
If you have static types and unions, control-flow analysis and narrowing is critical for avoiding an excessive amount of casts - and if you also have pattern matching, you get very nice style where a type-check, state extraction, and branch are all one expression.
Borrow checking. Zena is a GC'ed language, but it runs in Wasm and lots of Wasm resources are external, so Zena has affine types and second-class values for managing resources and disposing of them when no longer used. GC + borrowing is a great combo because you don't need borrowing for everything and lexical lifetimes with a few escape hatches cover most things. The ownership system is also great for modeling structured concurrency.
I'm working on contracts after borrow checking is complete. My impetus there is AI-generated code. If humans still review at all, reviewing the contacts more than the implementations makes managing large amounts of changes easier.
I'd like to see a few more good ideas spread:
Formal verification. Contracts should be a good stepping stone into a spec language, from there a proof language and checker. This should also be good for AI-generated code.
Numeric unit types / units of measure with dimensional analysis. We should be able to say that a variable isn't just a f64, but a f64 of meters, and when divided by seconds, give a velocity. I don't know why this hasn't made it into more mainstream languages, but it seems like it makes programs more clear, not just statically safer. For synax, my plan is to parameterize scalars by units, like f64<m> vs f64<s> and have units like `m` and `s` be associated with dimensions like `length` and `duration`.
Async cancellation. I added cancellation as a first-class language concept in Zena so that it can be handled like exceptions, but aren't exceptions. It extends try/catch to try/catch/cancel/finally. When a task is canceled, a cancellation unwinds the stack starting from the next suspension point (await). The benefit here is that you don't have to remember to check for cancellation in async functions - they're all cancellable.
``` let iterator = items.[Iterable.iterator](); // <--- this part in particular is confusing me while (let (true, item) = iterator.next()) { console.log(`next: ${item}`); } ```
Dimensional types and formal verification make me super excited to see more of this language. You also probably mention this somewhere and I'm missing it, but any thoughts on adding pure functions / more general mutability enforcements?
So `items.[Iterable.iterator]()` is invoking a symbol-keyed method.
It's declared like:
export interface Iterable<T> {
static symbol iterator;
[iterator](): Iterator<T>;
}
export MyArray<T> implements Iterable<T> {
[Iterable.iterator]() { ... }
}
I do want to add pure functions, especially for compile time constants. I want to add a macro system that can either run pure functions (on the AST or IR, not sure yet) at compile time, or run arbitrary code sandboxed in a Wasm module.
I can see how it can be useful to start with a broad type, e.g. a union, and narrow it down in a block. However, I don't quite get the opposite direction shown in their example (first an int, then a string, then a union).
You might be reading too much into the union example. The checker just doesn't know if the middle block ran, so maybe it remained an int, or maybe it became a string.
Flow typing, is actually called Flow-sensitive typing.
Contracts were introduced into the industry via Eiffel, which continues to be sold via Eiffel Software company.
By the way, at the recent DConf 2026, during the panel discussion, contracts was actually one of the features that were discussed as something that they would remove from the language, if doing it all over again.
Rust's borrow checker, is based on Affine Types, and the first systems language that looked into it was Cyclone, which AT&T started as research project in colaboration with an university, to eventually replace C.
I am confused
Can you elaborate what you mean?
Type inference/checking happens early in the pipeline.
SSA is a way of laying out assembly instructions for an abstract machine. I say abstract because real machines re-assign values to the same addresses over time (which is precisely what 'single' static assignment prescribes against). Once you know which registers your real machine has (and instructions), you could take your SSA and turn it into real assembly.
Also, "single-pass SSA"? Not to be too pedantic, but SSA is the destination, not the journey. You could take a single pass to transform from some expressions or statements into SSA, or perhaps from SSA into something else. What's the paper?
I was trying to see what was special about Crystal in this regard.
It seems like if you took any ML or Haskell-like, you'd have type inference.
Then you could allow shadowing (Rust-style) meaning the same symbol in the source code would be one variable now, and a different variable later.
Then your compiler would need to distinguish x into x1 and x2 so it could track them separately.
So yeah, kind of an SSA I guess!
The paper is: Brandis, Marc M., and Hanspeter Mössenböck. "Single-pass generation of static single-assignment form for structured languages." (https://bernsteinbear.com/assets/img/brandis-single-pass.pdf). It was quite understandable to me. For a deeper dive with proper SSA construction with dominance frontiers I could not find time to dig deeper, many other papers on SSA require focused CS work on them, not practically feasible for a side project. Also, single-pass is a requirement for very fast compilation to bytecode and LSP feedback.
I tried to read TS and Pyright source code, they share the same style of immense files and nested local functions, that was quite a steep wall to understand actual inner workings in detail. Maybe TS implementation in Go will be easier to read, it's on my later TODO list. It's tempting to use AI for help, but I'm quite experienced already with undoing AI work when it takes a wrong direction and I do not notice early.
You could parse a source language with shadowed variables into an AST, and then one of your earliest AST transforms could be a 'de-shadowing' pass. The resulting AST would only see variables assigned only once.
Then a type-inference pass, where your AST expressions would gain type info.
(Then a bunch more passes, e.g. closure conversion if you have them)
Then towards the end you could lower your typed AST into a typed instruction list (having the SSA property - but nothing to do with allowing variables and their types to shadow earlier in the pipeline)
out (; balance == balance + amount) // checked after method returns
The correct way to go about this would be to return the new balance and capture the return value in the first part of the out postcondition like:
```D double deposit(double amount) in (amount > 0, "Deposit amount must be positive") out (result; result == balance) { balance += amount; return balance; } ```
My mistake!
double deposit(double amount)
in (amount > 0, "Deposit amount must be positive")
out (result; result == balance)
{
balance += amount;
return balance;
}No idea what it would look like, but it's pretty likely that "optimized for humans" and "optimized for agents" are not identical. For some class of problem, we really don't need people to be in the code, and I expect that surface area to continue to expand.
Something that is optimized for context efficiency, for example, would be huge. You can go hard on the formalism and correctness, to an extent that would be a pain in the ass for humans but LLMs don't care. Think Rust borrow checker but higher up the stack for a different class of correctness.
Why?
> we really don't need people to be in the code
Code exists for humans, if only for safety reasons.
But flow typing? That seems like a footgun...
Refinement types can be used as compile time checks for preconditions and postconditions, while this contract programming is inserting runtime checks.
Here's a good post on the type state pattern in Rust (we don't actually have refinement types in something like Rust but the type state pattern is somewhere closer to refinement types on this spectrum): https://cliffle.com/blog/rust-typestate/
In advanced cases, you'd need dependent types, but the only place where that almost shows up is in the "amount <= balance" assertions. That's also silly because if you typed "amount" and "balance" correctly, then "balance -= amount" has to produce a runtime error because the resulting balance would be negative and not a valid value for the type. So, it's a very natural place anyway to force the programmer to properly handle errors anyways.
"Contracts" has been around a long time and has not caught on. That's usually a good sign that better approaches are prevailing.
In other words: refinement types are a better solution.
Contracts are an attempt to include formal specification languages into the implementation languages. You can enforce valid and invalid state changes, enforce relationships across the program state, or even enforce some level of correctness in behaviour.
> around a long time and has not caught on. That's usually a good sign that better approaches are prevailing.
That is completely not true. Plenty of dumb things prevail for faar too long for no other reason than momentum. Plenty of great things remain academic forever. It took decades to get algebraic types or basic functional programming somewhat accepted.
Design by contract is in theory a good idea but suffers from being a pain to use effectively. (making actually useful invariants that help the program more than an assert already would have)
Adding them to languages not built around them also results in quite nasty boilerplate or runtime overhead which further discourage their usage.
Contracts don't have to be evaluated dynamically, that's just one way they're implemented. See SPARK/Ada for an example of contracts being used to prove programs statically, not just test them dynamically.
For full formal proofs it's easier to use cbmc or esbmc though
> LLMs will make it easier to prototype new concepts,
So where are these prototypes?
I'm working on one, but you're not going to like it.
No, of course not. The point is that the tools comprehend the idea and implement it. Not that they have the idea for you.