Better name than traitscript?

[shelby3]

Scala used trait for interface combined with mixins long before Rust used them for typeclasses.

Perhaps we can think of a better name? Ideas?

The Traitscript name isn't that sexy/racy nor exciting. A racy name would be for example HaloScript or just Halo.

Edit: also Traitscript can be mispronounced “traits crypt”. One syllable names are best.

[shelby3]

I would like if possible to capture the notion of decentralization, because type-classes are delayed binding of implementation, interface, and data. The degrees-of-freedom are increased. This also enables greater modularity as well as solving Wadler's famous Expression Problem.

Pivot
Unbounded
Slack
Unchained
Float
Orthogonal
Multitype
Furcate
Pliant
Antifragile
Resilient
Flexuous
Shapeless
Amorphous
Morph
Subvert
Warp
Oust
Sunder
Cleave
Bits
Iota
Scintilla
Mingle
Diffuse
Dispersed
Entropy
Disjoint
Shard

My favorites of those above are:

Flexuous
Float
Mingle
Multitype
Pivot
Shapeless
Subvert
Warp

And I still like Halo.

[keean]

A good test is to Google each term. If you get a lot of hits for the same thing (like I am sure Halo will pick up a lot about the game), then its probably not a good name.

[shelby3]

@shelby3 wrote:

My favorites of those above are:

Flexuous
Float
Mingle
Multitype
Pivot
Shapeless
Subvert
Warp

@keean wrote:

A good test is to Google each term. If you get a lot of hits for the same thing (like I am sure Halo will pick up a lot about the game), then its probably not a good name.

Then ‘Float’ is eliminated because it returns a lot of hits for the CSS property and “Float language” returns the data type in other languages such as C. And ‘Mingle’ is eliminated because returns many variants of dating sites, so it is the wrong connotation. In Pokémon and unrelated in JBOSS there are features named ‘Multitype’, but this appears to be incidental to those projects and thus not a strong disqualification. So the remaining choices from that list are:

Flexuous
Multitype
Pivot
Shapeless
Subvert
Warp

If we were using the following criteria, then ‘Warp’ would be best:

Edit: also Traitscript can be mispronounced “traits crypt”. One syllable names are best.

First impression is that ‘Flexuous’ is likely to connote limberness in 2D or 3D space, not type system adaptability. Perhaps ‘Adaptacious’ is better, but isn't a word, it is too long (difficult) to spell, and ‘-cious’ causes the mind to think of luscious, ludicrous, etc. Although perhaps one can make the same argument about Apple’s Swift or Google’s Go languages, except that faster development has often been a theme in programming tools, e.g. Borland Turbo C from the 1980s. I've seen “Flex Canvas” used to describe a CSS3 proposal and also I believe it may be a widget name in the Android GUI, both being 2D space flexibility concepts. In short, flexibility is not the same meaning as adaptability.

‘Multitype’ is very descriptive and that may also be its weakness. If want to name a car, I don't name it ‘Car’. Also it sounds more like a feature than an entire programming language, i.e. a one-hit-wonder aka language with only one feature. Also many typing paradigms have multiple types, so it might not be quite clear what is the advance.

I like ‘Pivot’ for being so darn unique and for the concept and vernacular “to pivot” away from a current situation or strategy into a superior one. For me that is a powerful connotation. However, ‘pivot’ also has other meanings which imply a centralized hub from which rotation is constrained.

I got the idea for the name ‘Shapeless’ from Miles Sabin’s Scala project. It is a really geek-cool abstract name, as is Miles and his project. It really fits since with type-classes, the data types don’t have any hardcoded interface (behavior) shape and this is adding delay at the function application use-site.

Well ‘Subvert’ pumps antifreeze through my humor-seeking rebellious aorta and superior vena cava. And it is very roughly a spoonerism on ‘subversion’ thus in my mind also on ‘subclassing’. So we subvert the subversioning of subclassing. I like the names (including ‘Pivot’, ‘Shapeless’, and ‘Warp’) that imply we are creating a revolution in s/w development.

Finally ‘Warp’ is subversive twist on Apple’s Swift. And I suspect our type-classes will be better than modeling it as design pattern with their protocols.

Which if any do you like @keean?

(I love open source, because I get to do a brain dump to the public)

[keean]

I tend to like obscure literary references. I like the concept of shapeless, but the word itself seems to lack something. Warp reminds me of star trek, subvert seems too subversive :-) Pivot seems a bit too much like 'turning'.

[shelby3]

I tend to like obscure literary references.

Such as amorphous? Or do you mean some term minted in literature, such Kafkaesque?

I like the concept of shapeless, but the word itself seems to lack something.

Yeah I think I was also favoring Shapeless. It is the choice which has the least negative or incorrect associations.

That it lacks something is part of the shock value IMO. Shock value can be very valuable in marketing.

But if the lack of something is not shocking but rather underwhelming, then that is probably not good.

IMO, Shapeless is shocking, not underwhelming. I think it would intrigue the curiosity of geeks.

Do you get a different feeling from it? Maybe the "less" is having a negative impression, such as language isn't complete?

subvert seems too subversive :-)

It is riskier, but if we really think we are pulling off a revolutionary step forward...

[keean]

From H. P. Lovecraft you have the nameless, shapeless watcher, and other abhorrent things :-)

I quite like 'vert' ... I need some sleep now...

[shelby3]

I quite like 'vert'

(con)Vert or Vert(ical)?

New ideas:

Emend
JIType
Plug or Pluggable
Retrofit
Sculpt

And Retrofit or Pluggable seems nearly ideal. Instead of trait, I may prefer pluggable or retroface.

[keean]

RetroScript sounds quite good, fits the pattern of other JS like language.

Some inspiration: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ProgrammingLanguageNamingPatterns

[shelby3]

Well I think I may have decided to use ZenScript or just Zen for short. I will probably create my own repository soon and start working on the LL(k) table driven parser. You are of course free to use any name you wish in your repository. And I suggest let's observe which repository gains traction and then focus there.

Retro as slang in the USA connotes "old school" or throw back to something old.

[keean]

I like Zen/ZenScript :-) Can I change the repo name?

Retro in the UK tends to mean out-of-date (so old-school in a way, but not necessarily a positive way), it also means going backwards (retrograde motion).

I am using this parser: https://github.com/jneen/parsimmon/blob/master/API.md

Having spent a long time writing a parser combinator library for C++, I really want to focus on the actual language implementation.

I am doing test-driven-development, so the main command to run all the tests is "npm test" so far I have a reasonable code-generator from the AST, and I am working on the parser, but of course that requires having decided the syntax :-) I am using a nano-pass compiler approach.

[shelby3]

I like Zen/ZenScript :-) Can I change the repo name?

Of course 😍

I am using this parser: https://github.com/jneen/parsimmon/blob/master/API.md

I'll analyze and compare what is best for implementing the parser. We may discuss else where.

I am doing test-driven-development, so the main command to run all the tests is "npm test" so far I have a reasonable code-generator from the AST, and I am working on the parser, but of course that requires having decided the syntax :-) I am using a nano-pass compiler approach.

Open source is best. If I can't see what you are doing, then I can't compare to the way I am thinking of doing it. We'll hopefully converge on one Git repository of source code that we mutually develop.

[keean]

Open source is best. If I can't see what you are doing, then I can't compare to the way I am thinking of doing it. We'll hopefully converge on one Git repository of source code that we mutually develop.

Can you not check the repo out? There is already code checked in here. I don't know how to create a repo that is jointly owned, but I can give you checkin permission here if you want it.

git clone git@github.com:keean/zenscript.git
cd zenscript
make init
make

[shelby3]

@keean can you please edit the close to add a Label that indicates a favorable resolution?