The Crystal programming language | http://crystal-lang.org | Fund Crystal's development: http://is.gd/X7PRtI | Docs: http://crystal-lang.org/docs/ | API: http://crystal-lang.org/api/
staticarray can't be resized so there would be too many cases where the only way out would be too raise a runtime exception in the general case
That is true. If it's doing bounds checking already though, it can be implemented for SA to not dynamic grow the heap memory (since it's not heap memory)
It is looking like my types are going to be structs wrapping a regular dynamic Array then
I might pay for allocation/fragmentation with lots of objects, so not sure yet though
Hey you can refer this resource on System arraycopy() method in java - https://www.flowerbrackets.com/system-arraycopy-method-java/
Where is the macro control flow and other keywords listed in the docs, such as
{% for ... %}
Trying to generate a call to
initialize value, value, value where the number of "value"s is the length of the splatted macro argument
Hmm, I guess I could do this, but it seems macro writing in Crystal is a lot of DRY violations, unless I'm not experienced.
private macro make_accessors(*names)
{% for name, i in names %}
def {{name}}
@data[{{i}}]
end
def {{name}}=(value : Float64)
@data[{{i}}] = value
end
{% end %}
end
private macro make_constructors(*names)
def initialize({% for name in names %} {{name}} : Float64, {% end %})
{% for name, i in names %}
@data[{{i}}] = {{name}}
{% end %}
end
def initialize(value : Float64 = 0.0)
initialize({% for name in names %} value, {% end %})
end
end
make_accessors x, y, z
make_constructors x, y, z
Just seems odd that I have to bind a variable to iterate N times, and I can't even use an underscore
(line 19 above)
My first library is finished, code-wise, and I'm pretty happy with it. I still have to do docs and specs which will take a long time given the number of defs, but yay
I saved a considerable amount of complexity and duplicated code by wrapping a staticarray and forwarding missing, instead of all the nonsense i had to do before
i think srasu suggested that, or whoever it was, thanks
oh i guess it's suskeyhose over on gitter
Is there a recommended style guide apart from the rather short one on the web site? I was looking to see what magic number this language recommends for max columns :)
i usually just make it so i dont have to scroll :p
Well, I hope the macro writing DSL grammar is on the list of things to improve. This is definitely not as powerful as Lisp.
methods in macro land is the issue discussing most of my concerns though
I get that nothing can possibly be as powerful as Lisp, without actually being Lisp, because once you add homoiconicity to a language that enables powerful macros taking advantage of the full language instead of a DSL, you can practically call it a Lisp
But a little more will go a long way
However, despite being a huge Lisp fan, I stay away from macros unless I have to, unlike a lot of people that grow old trying to bend the language to do cool new things. However, when I actually do need to write a macro for some syntactic abstraction or boilerplate reduction, I need access to the language at compile time, not some tiny subset of it.
I am by no means trying to bash Crystal though. Its balance of simplicity and power is what drove me to try it, and I am very pleased with that. Lisp is pretty much 1000% power.
Yes, the "loop n times" instead of "loop over some collection/range" can be simulated like that, though I would have liked to use
_ in place of i to convey meaning to the reader.
Bringing over the
times method would almost be enough, except need some concise DSL to account for when the count is the length of a sequence, but still don't want to bind any e or i vars
</nitpick> The real issue is DRY violation as that issue discusses. I think a lot of people would be happy with work done in that area
you also have
.each and .map available
kinda
you have macro level variables that you could use it to set, but you'd have to use
for in if you wanted to iterate over them and generate code
Oh sure, that'll just return a sequence for you to do whatever with, like
{% for ... %} :)
That latest snippet answered an unrelated question I was going to ask.