j-o-m

Not particularly inspired by the array languages in general. I do like the idea of a specifics DSL or library that is built from the ground up for ‘vector’ operations (Futhark would certainly be an inspiration here). I do think an (syntax divergences aside) implementation of what is essentially CUDA-like language/library is very possible.

I don’t really have any lofty goals, the language exists to let me have my personal ideal programming language. One of the things I would like to see adopted, by any language, is that the language is able to encode and present provable guarantees about code. So, memory safety, freedom from UB, lack of overflow (integer or stack) is provable in some subset of the language and the proof is done in a logically consistent, verifiable manner.

Of course most of those proofs are not anywhere near feasible for general case code, but the language can restrict allowable constructs in a computation, function, process, or module to a set that makes the desired properties provable by construction.

The language should be capable of unifying and abstracting over SIMD (or other hardware implementations), GPUs, and OS or Userspace multithreading at levels of abstraction from assembly to Haskell or other high level languages.

Working on finally releasing the programming language I’ve been working on for quite a while.

I’m setting up the basic site, which is not a huge deal, but I’ve been inspired by more recent language designers having a streaming presence, so I am working through test runs of streaming my development.

I hope to start with demos of the basic language features and then move on to streaming both a reimplementation of my compiler and on a Rocq implementation of the syntax and semantics of the language for proof work.

The language has a rather small niche at first glance, so I’m hoping to use the streaming as a way to explore areas of appeal and maybe draw some interest. A low level concurrent and parallel ‘functional’ language with very non-traditional syntax and a modal, dependent type theory is not going to appeal to everyone, but hopefully I can find some interest eventually, even if just to hang out on chat and talk about the subject.

That is true, there is a lot of emphasis being placed on his post as though it were the embodiment of Microsoft’s goals and policies going forward. I was a little surprised that he is just a lead on a research team from the bombastic tone of the post.

I’ll own up to not considering that when I wrote my comment, still think discussing Microsoft’s seemingly head first dive into massive AI generation of code is entertaining, even if it is not really as important (or important at all) as it would be if this was a post from the CEO.

I don’t understand this view point. How is anyone reading ‘way too much’ into the post based on what’s being discussed in this thread. A senior engineer leading a team at Microsoft saying that his goal is to rewrite/replace all C and C++ code with Rust using AI to facilitate the work is plainly saying what the comments in this thread are reacting to. No onenis reading into the statement, just plain reading. And even though it’s been edited since attention got focused on it, the post still says a goal for his team is 1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code.

Further, this is not a random speculative post, it is an announcement for a job opening on the posters team.

I find the real question: are all 16,000 of those lines require to implement the optimization? How much of that is dealing with LLVM’s internal representation and the varying complexity of LLVM’s other internal structure?