Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

analogy-lang #463

silky opened this Issue Jan 28, 2019 · 0 comments


None yet
1 participant
Copy link

silky commented Jan 28, 2019

reading by @maetl i had an idea for a programming language

consider two types, "person" and "frog", let's say

there are at least two problems; one is the one in the article - it's hard to come up with a complete list of methods/properties that should exactly define one of these things. in surfaces and essences they argue that in reality no categorisation has perfectly defined boundaries; so how to define the types?

another problem is what happens if i want to build a thing that is both "person-like" and "frog-like"? you can't. especially not if the differences are far away (i.e. is frog hopping like "walking"? should it be the implementation of a "walk" method? probably not; but a "move" method? probably? but what about less-clear things? and doesn't it depend on what your merging with)

in this way it seems like it's impossible to come up with strict types for anything

so here's an idea:

analogy-lang: let's you define types in a much more relaxed way; "this thing is like that thing in these ways, but different in these ways"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.