In roughly descending order of importance to Jasper.
A given, but i'm just being comprehensive here.
Computer programming languages are defined as languages intended for describing computation, but another thing that distinguishes them from human language is their unambiguity. So, programming languages might be said to be languages for defining computation, not just for describing them.
However, i have a feeling that human language gets much of its conciseness (e.g. for many tasks, you could get a human to do the same task as a computer with less characters in the human instructions than in the computer program) by tolerating ambiguity. If someone could figure out a way to make a a programming language that worked like that, that would be neat. So unambiguity isn't actually an end-goal for me. But since i can't figure out how to make a programming language that works like this, for now i'll stick with unambiguous languages.
Paul Graham justifies this well at http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html (although i disagree that 'succinctness is power'; i think language power is more what i call 'extensibility', below). Succinctness is not just efficiency of writing but seems to (inversely) correspond to how much mental resources an expert must expend to keep part of a program in one's head.
An ideally succinct language would allow you to write a large project using much less lines of code than it would take in another language.
Viscosity mean how hard is it to change a program. (I stole this term from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dimensions_of_notations . My usage of this term also incorporates what they call "Premature commitment")
An ideally reusable language would never require you to rewrite something very similar to something that has already been written; you'd always be able to adapt the existing code to your situation and reuse it.
In practice, code reuse serves similar goals as succintness.
The tendency of source code written in the language to be easy to read by someone other than the writer. This is an interesting property because it relates to a community of people rather than to individuals; it spotlights that an important function of a computer programming language is communication between two humans, in addition to its function as communication between a human and a computer. Of course, readability would also be important even if you were the only person on Earth, because after a lot of time passes, it can be hard to read your own code, too (you could imagine a community composed of your past and future selves).
Succinctness is sometimes in conflict with readability, because sometimes a language achieves succinctness by having code that takes a lot of effort to 'decode' into primitives that are intuitive for the human mind. But sometimes it is not, because if the language is succinct, there is less to read.
A case study in readability is to contrast Perl (unreadable) and Python (readable). These languages share many similarities and they are prototypical 'scripting languages' which played similar roles.
See http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ for some principals of Python's design, many of which contribute to readability. Here are the ones i think contribute most to readability, in descending order, with my interpretation/comments:
An ideally readable language would make it so that an intermediate-level programmer could easily understand any code written in the language.
Code reuse can increase readability.
For Jasper, i agree most with "one obvious way to do it" (oowtdi), "Simple is better than complex" (few parts), and "Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" (regularity). I think that in many cases, succintness trumps "Explicit is better than implicit" (e.g. i hate typing 'self' all the time in Python, and i dont care for the colons in Python either; i think these sorts of things help learnability a lot but dont help the expert reader much), "Flat is better than nested" and "Sparse is better than dense" (i agree that is is more effort to read dense, nested code, but i think it's worth it because then you can fit more code on the page, which makes the program as a whole easier to grok even though it makes it harder to read each piece of it).
Another part of readability is how easy it is to document things. If it is easier, then people will tend to document more. The more extensible the language is, the more that documentation is needed, because you can't take the semantics of anything for granted (as pointed out by http://pointersgonewild.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/why-lisp-never-took-off/ )
A Python convention is to explicitly import each symbol used which is defined in a library. This allows a human reader to know where a symbol came from by reading only the source file in which the symbol is used. However, in theory an automated tool could tell the human reader where a symbol came from even without this. My notion of readability assumes that the reader has access to all of the automated tools that come with the language.
Debuggability is often related to readability: how easily can you understand what the compiler or interpreter is trying to tell you.
Or, lack of error-prone-ness. The metric is not how easy is it to write code, but how easy is it to write error-free code.
An ideally safe language would almost never have any bugs except conceptual bugs -- when you have a bug, it would be easy to explain what the bug was to anyone else working on a similar task in a different language, without explaining anything about your language.
Examples of safety are:
The language should allow one piece of code to run another piece of code with limited privilages. Perhaps it should also support trusted computing to prevent this ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86278.0 ) but i'm worried about this ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html ).
I don't know much about this so i'll probably get it wrong.
Any Turing-complete language can simulate any other one, so what could extensibility mean? I think it means not just the ability to make one language act like another language, but to get it to do so by means of source code that is similar in structure to what you'd give the other language; and also without a huge amount of code (e.g. without an interpreter). That is, how succinctly can you coax this language to take code which is similar in structure to the code you would give some other language, and have this language do with that the same thing that the other language would do? For instance, in Prolog you can say:
sibling(X,Y) :- parentS(F,M,X), parentS(F,M,Y), X \= Y.
mother(m,x). mother(m,y). father(f,b). father(f,c). mother(X,Y) :- parentS(_,X,Y). father(X,Y) :- parentS(X,_,Y).
How much code does it take to be able to give code structurally similar to that to Python and to get results like that?
Extensibility is usually used as a subjective concept. Out of all of the mathematically possible languages (computable total functions from source code to behavior), most of them are senseless confusing things that map short strings to what would be arbitrarily long detailed programs in, say, Python. Really, we only care about extensibility relative to some distribution of possible languages that people tend to want to mimic, a distribution that occupies a tiny subset of all possible languages. But since new languages are being invented all the time, we don't know precisely how to characterize this 'useful' subset. Extensibility is usually characterized by finding other known languages and trying to express interesting constructs from that language in this one, to see if it can be done using a similar form and relatively succinctly. But the acid test is how well this language can express constructs that no one had yet thought of at the time of this language's creation.
An ideally extensible language would (assuming it is efficient, had good libraries, etc) be the perfect language for writing programming languages. In fact, it would be so perfect that all other programming languages would, from that time forward, be developed in this language.
Extensibility is in conflict with readability. Imagine a language which was capable of easily mimicing every other existing programming language (perhaps you can have a header 'perl' for a section of code that is like perl, then 'scheme' for a section like scheme, etc). Different authors would write code using different combinations of mimiced languages, and the reader would have to know how to read all of them, which is equivalent to being good at reading every existing programming language; a formidable task.
Extensibility is in conflict with safety. Extensible languages allow you to easily whip up abstract formal systems which are abstracted very far from any typical concrete domain, systems with a lot of 'leverage' in the sense that a small change in the source code can cause a large change in the structure of the semantics. This is dangerous because (a) intuition about systems and experience about the hazards in systems derive from concrete domains, but since you can easily create systems abstracted far from typical concrete domains, you can easily venture into untested and confusing waters, and (b) the leverage combined with the lack of intuition makes it easier to have 'false cognates', operations on the source code which you think will do one thing but actually do something else.
In real life, parts of code which do metaprogramming are often described as 'black magic' due to their irreadability (it's hard to figure out how they work) and lack of safety (it's hard to change them without breaking them).
In order to fight these tendencies, Jasper provides many different types of metaprogramming facilities, on a ladder from less powerful to more powerful. The idea is that each author should use the least powerful metaprogramming facility that they can to accomplish their goal; this way, one incurs the minimum amount of damage to readability and safety; the magic is only as black as it needs to be.
An ideally small language would be able to be defined in just one page of plain English.
Small size is very important to Jasper, although i don't know why.
Another usage of the term 'language size' is how many of the standard constructs and library functions and idioms you need to understand to be comfortable reading typical real-world code written in the language. I don't care about that as much. In that sense, Jasper will probably end up being larger than i'd like, but not huge.
In an ideally orthogonal language, none of its constructs would be able to be implemented in terms of the others.
If 'language' is understood in terms of the language core, this is very important to Jasper, although, like size, i don't know why.
If 'language' is understood in terms of the set of typically used standard constructs and library functions, this is important to Jasper, but only for its oowtdi value. So, the real values for Jasper are code reuse and readability, not orthogonality for its own sake, at least when talking about all standard parts of the language, not just the core.
An ideally regular language would be defined by a small number of simple rules with no exceptions.
I don't know why this is important (aside from learnability) but i feel intuitively that it is. I intend for Jasper to be regular.
Interoperability refers to how easy it is to compose a system out of some parts written in this language and some parts written in other languages.
An ideally interoperable language would be able to call and be called from any other language, transparently converting data to and from the other languages' native data structures.
I don't know anything about how to create an interoperable language. I guess much of it is having 'a good FFI', but i'm not sure what characteristics a good FFI has, or what other features are useful outside of a good FFI. I'm hoping to look at Clojure for some pointers. Any advice? Email me please:
Communal gravity is the tendency of a language to resist splintering. The community of an ideally grave language would never splinter into dialects.
Extensibility is in conflict with communal gravity. It has been said that Lisp splinters easily because it is so easy to create your own Lisp dialect by extending an existing Lisp with macros (see http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html ). For Jasper, extensibility is a high priority, so gravity will have to suffer. We hope that the ladder of metaprogramming facilities will fight the splintering tendency, as well as our effort to consider merging popular improvements into Jasper core (although we plan to reject more than we accept).
Another Jasper increases communal gravity is by having a single canonical implementation (see below).
An ideally learnable language would be learnable by a child in one day.
Compilation speed is in conflict with succinctness, extensibility, and safety. Compilation speed is not a major goal for Jasper, although it's not totally unimportant either -- we don't want people having to go out to lunch every time they want to change a small project.
Execution speed is in conflict with succinctness and safety. Execution speed is not a major goal for Jasper. If we create a language that is just incredibly awesome but way too slow, and we have to remove some power in exchange for speed, that's fine, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.
I've customized my favorite text editor a bit and so i like to edit everything with that, rather than run a specific IDE for each language. So, i want Jasper to work well with almost any text editor, even Notepad. That rules out some design choices; e.g. w/r/t Lisp, when people complain that it's hard to count parentheses, Lispers say, 'your editor should do that'; w/r/t Python, when people complain that significant indentation is a pain to maintain, Pythonistas say, 'your editor should do that'. That excuse is not available to us.
Wikipedia defines homeoiconicity as "a property of some programming languages, in which the primary representation of programs is also a data structure in a primitive type of the language itself". Homeoiconic languages are often described as 'syntaxless'.
Unfortunately this concept is imprecise. Perhaps you suppose that the primary representation is the source code; then should any language with strings be considered homeoiconic? Perhaps you suppose that the primary language is the AST; then since Python's AST can be represented as a list or a dict, should Python be considered homeoiconic? Perhaps you suppose that homeoiconicity implies that the structure of the source code should mimic the structure of the AST ("the internal and external representations are essentially the same" to use Alan Kay's terminology), e.g. parsing should involve ONLY looking for matched grouping constructs such as parens; but even most Lisps have a few exceptions to that such comment-to-end-of-line and single-quote expansion, e.g. 'x --> (quote x).
The benefit of homeoiconicity is purportedly that it makes macros easier. The cost is that your choice of syntax is very restricted (so much so that homeoiconic languages are often described as 'syntaxless').
I question that purported benefit; shouldn't any language which provides language-level support for easily manipulating the AST be easy for macros? However Steve Yegge says otherwise: "Unfortunately, even Ruby and Python (which "feel" simpler, syntactically) both also have very complicated grammars, making it nontrivial to write code that processes them, even with parsers that hand you the AST directly." -- http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html . I haven't actually tried to do things with the Ruby or Python ASTs so i'll have to take his word for it.
My feeling is that homeoiconicity is a very good thing, but not an absolute requirement. I think a language which is 'almost homeoiconic' is okay.
Jasper's deviations from homeoiconicity include (todo: make this a comprehensive list):
That is to say, in Jasper if you want to apply f to y, add 1, and assign the result to x, you write "x = 1++(f y)", not "1++(y f) = x". "1++(y f) = x" (the nonstandard way that we didn't adopt) would be clearer, because when you read it from left to right, that follows the order that data actually flows thru the expression.
However, programming text is usually left-aligned, which makes it easy to scan down the screen with your eye and look at the leftmost words; and hard to scan down looking at the rightmost words. A common use of scanning is to look for where some variable is defined, or when some side-effectful command is executed (e.g. 'print "hello"'). So, we want the 'x' in 'x = 3', and the 'print' in 'print "hello"' to be on the left. We'd like to keep things regular, so this implies that we should use the usual ordering.
I'm a fan of the concept of significant whitespace. I don't care what style my whitespace is, and i hate reformatting my code to meet some whitespace standard. I'm perfectly happy to let whitespace have some semantics if it makes code easier to read or quicker to type; i'll give up the freedom to decide if my curly brace should go at the end of this line or the beginning of the next. However, the typical whitespace semantics (Python-style significant indentation) doesn't copy-and-paste well (or maintain well) with dumb code editors. So significant indentation is out, but other kinds of significant whitespace is in.
On one end of the scale is custom precedence (e.g. Haskell). On the other is no precedence (e.g. Lisp).
I don't like custom precedence. Custom precedence severely impacts readability because a reader can't even parse a line of some else's code without first looking up the precedence of all of the user-defined operators in that code.
For the sake of a small, regular language, Jasper eschews the notion of a long list of keywords with varying precedence. The exception is the assignment operator.
I'm not going to be drawn into this argument. If i say yes, Lisp fans will say i am besmirching the name of Lisp with my unworthy language. If i say no, Lisp fans will say i am claiming to have invented something new when i really just made a poor version of Lisp. Different folks have different definitions of Lisp. So, if you tell me what definition of Lisp you like, i'll tell you if Jasper meets that definition.
Don't know enough to judge. My guess is that to properly support unicode we need:
One way to achieve code reuse is through having a few standard data structure interfaces. Since code often cannot easily be generalized to apply to a data structure with a different interface, the fewer of these there are, the more reuse will be possible. Python and Clojure are particularly good about this. This is an application of Python's adage, "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
Python still has some trouble; I have often found myself having to cast back and forth between Python arrays (which work in standard list comprehensions) and Python (numpy) arrays. Haskell is close to the mark but also has some trouble; you cannot just take any library that was written to use Haskell strings (linked lists of characters) and feed it Haskell ByteStrings? (arrays of characters) (annoyingly, if everything in Haskell uniformally used typeclasses, this wouldn't be a problem -- but Haskell syntax makes typeclasses more verbose than vanilla data types, and in addition, many programs won't compile if you don't use a vanilla type anywhere, because the compiler doesn't know how to choose which type in the typeclass you want).
Like Lisp, Jasper excels here with only one primary data structure. Unlike Lisp and Haskell, the data structure is a network, not just a list.
Jasper uses macros to help with extensibility and succinctness.
Static typing is great for writing code in IDEs and for safety, but it tends to impede viscocity. Also, if the typing system is simple, it impedes extensibility, but if it is more expressive, it impedes readability. Type inference works well with a simple type system but is too unreadable (during debugging) with an expressive one.
There is a sense that the perfect type system would be simple enough to read and to debug inferred types, yet expressive enough not to impede the programmer too much; however to my knowledge such a system has not yet been discovered. As far as i can tell, the state of the art is something like Haskell's type system, which is sufficiently expressive for most purposes but way too hard to understand. And as far as i can tell, type system design is a popular research problem which occupies many of the best minds of computer science. So it's a hard problem, and until more progress has been made, typing in Jasper will be optional, so that no one has to use whatever broken type system we come up with if they don't want to.
But optional typing is there because it's very useful for IDEs (reducing viscosity) and for safety.
Jasper is lazy because it helps with succinctness by allowing infinite data structures and it helps with code reuse by allowing the definition of data structures to be separated from the tactics used to realize parts of them. I believe it helps with extensibility too, although i'm not sure how.
The main downside of laziness is that it is hard to learn to use it (and to debug it) if you are used to non-lazy languages. Another downside is that it is hard to debug memory usage.
Jasper's core data structure is immutable because this helps with safety. However, there are mutable constructs also, and even references.
Jasper tries to make it easy to reason about mutability by providing constructs to control and limit mutability, by providing immutable core library functions, and by making immutability the default and mutability explicit rather than implicit.
A note on referential transparency, immutability, and aliasing. Referential transparency is said to make code easier to reason about. I opine that this is true more at the macro level than the micro. Specifically, i don't see any problem with destructive variable updates, e.g. code like "x = 3; x = x + 3", or with for loops with mutable iterator variables. These constructs make code concise and they easily be replaced by referentially transparent equivalents if necessary for analysis. I opine that where referential transparency helps more is in not having to worry about side effects across functional boundaries. One type of side effect is caused by reference types across functions, e.g. it's nice to not have to remember that if you change one of the items in array x over here that you'll also be changing one of the items of array y in some different part of the code, because x and y are pointers to the same array.
Therefore, Jasper is not referentially transparent within functions (mutable variables are allowed). It permits the concept of a reference (a value that can have multiple aliases), but most library functions create values, not references, and references are distinguished syntactically. The idea is that if you don't think about it, you won't find yourself using references, but if you really need them, they're there.
Other side effects are also permitted, but are also distinguished.
It's reasonable to expect the programmer to keep track of implicit side-effects that are caused within the lexical scope that e is currently working on. There's only so much code there to read.
What's difficult to keep track of is the side-effects of code that is outside of the current lexical scope.
In this sense, within lexical scope, the language should be optimized for programming-in-the-small, and should choose conciseness over safety. Across lexical scope, however, you want to optimize for programming-in-the-large, and should choose safety and clean interfaces.
For example, closures; if your function accesses a variable defined in an enclosing lexical scope, that's okay; it's not that hard for you to look thru the enclosing scope to find everywhere the variable is set in the enclosing scope. Similarly, if an inner function, a function that you define within the current lexical scope, changes a variable, that's okay; it's not that hard to look thru the enclosed scope to find everywhere the variable is set in the enclosed scope. But, if you use a variable that was defined by whoever called you from another lexical scope, and that wasn't passed in your formal parameters, that's a little more confusing. If a subroutine that you call mutates one of your local variables, that's very confusing. This is why global variables are more dangerous than lexical closures.
It's not so confusing when mutation happens within lexical scope. This is another way to justify why we permit local mutation of local variables by default, even though we prefer immutability when passing things between functions.
One detail is that you also have to watch the "marginal safety tax rates" as you go from lexical scope to non-; for example, at first it seems like a good idea to require that all function definitions have explicit type annotations for formal parameters, but this would cause programmers to put off splitting up a big function into smaller subfunctions (especially because it would increase viscosity; e.g. if you have to change one of those types later, now you have to change it in a bunch of places instead of just one, especially if one type changed causes the types of multiple formal parameters, which were previously untyped locals, to have to be changed, because then you can't just do a single string search-and-replace in a text editor).
Jasper's object system serves multiple purposes. Using delegation and inheritance, it assists in code reuse. Using instance variables, it assists with encapsulation of mutable state. Using late-binding dynamic dispatch, it assists in extensibility.
As part of the type information of identifiers, Jasper tracks whether the identifier is 'pure', that is, whether it is defined in a referentially transparent manner. This helps with safety and readability.
Interceptors (called monads in other languages) are an extensibility mechanism.
The type system provides safety by allowing a compiler to do a proof that certain kinds of errors are not present in the program.
The type system provides conciseness by allowing the programmer to write constructs that are locally ambiguous, with the ambiguity resolved by typing information that comes from other parts of the program (for example, ad-hoc polymorphism on type).
The type system provides IDE support by allowing autocomplete.
Type system also help a lot with optimization, but that's not a major goal of Jasper, although hopefully we'll be able to add this later.
The programmer should be allowed to choose not to bother with the type system to as great an extent as possible. Practically, this means that anything which is there for solely for the purpose of safety is optional, leaving only that interaction with the type system required to resolve ambiguity. Furthermore, anything which is needed to resolve ambiguity but which is guaranteed to be known at runtime before the ambiguity must be resolved, may remain optional.
Also, the programmer should be able to choose the program 'dynamically', that is, to choose the type of objects at runtime, without bothering to prove at compile time that type errors will be avoided.
That is, regardless of what the source code says, type errors which are only relevant to safety may be suppressed by the compiler or interpreter (todo: we should definitely be able to suppress when the error is because we cannot prove that we are safe; but should we be able to suppress errors when the compiler can prove that we ARE NOT safe? mb not..)
The type system should be at least capable of detecting:
E.g. if a function is side-effectful and it returns a list of ints, these can be seen as two separate pieces of information, rather than Haskell's way in which the type is IO [Int].
This implies that any portion of the type system needed to resolve ambiguity should be simple.
For example, Haskell's use of induction in the type system to achieve variadic functions would be considered an abomination: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3467279/how-to-create-a-polyvariadic-haskell-function (see  )
Note that we are concerned here with readability; we don't want to even offer the option for programmers to use the type system in this way.
For example, ad-hoc polymorphism depending on the types of inputs to a function is easy to understand. In order to simulate the type inference in your head for this, you just have to simulate what is happening in the program anyways, which programmers are already good at.
Furthermore, ad-hoc polymorphism in this direction, if resolved at runtime, is the same as if there was a 'switch' statement in the code at this point that switches depending upon the type of the inputs. So programmers can reason about this type system behavior in terms of something else familiar.
On the other hand, ad-hoc polymorphism depending only on the types of return arguments is more difficult to understand. It proceeds 'backwards in time', and it cannot be emulated by non-type-inferencing runtime code.
This further explains why http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3467279/how-to-create-a-polyvariadic-haskell-function is difficult to understand (see  ).
It's okay for parts of the type system to be complicated, as long as those parts are only used by experts to essentialy write proofs about their code, and not necessary for other people to touch (or to understand in order to resolve ambiguity in someone else's code).
To help with code reuse and extensibility, Jasper relies heavily on interfaces, like Python and Clojure and Haskell's typeclasses (btw there are important differences in how each of those languages their 'interface' analog).
Rather than speak of 'the' type of a value, the system is concerned with tracking multiple attributes of that value. A reference to a function may be unique, the function may be side-effectful, and it may return a list of ints. Programmers are able to write annotations that speaks of one of these facts in isolation without knowing about the others.
Since ad-hoc polymorphism deals with ambiguity, not just safety, it is mandatory for readers to understand what the type system is doing in this case. Return-type-only ad-hoc polymorphism requires complex reasoning that cannot be mimiced by a simple runtime type check.
Therefore we choose to restrict (or possible even eliminate) this form of ambiguity resolution.
Expanding the concept of 'assertion', Jasper offers statements to promise that some conditional is True, and statements to demand that some conditional is True. The demand allows the programmer to express arbitrary invariants. The promise allows the programmer to tell the typechecker to assume that some invariant has been met, allowing the programmer to meet demands even when they are unable to formulate a proof for the typechecker that the demand has been met.
The invoker of the compiler or interpreter can tell Jasper to treat promises and demands as runtime assertions, or to ignore them at runtime, or even to ignore them or subsets of them at compile time.
(also, todo i think we subsume existential types under this, but need to doublecheck)
This allows the language of the type checker to be unified with a core Jasper concept.
For example, the type system won't prevent you from using linked lists instead of byte arrays for your strings, provided both implementations support the same signature and claim to support the same semantics.
Note that a type may specify more than a signature, however; e.g. a function can have an opaque property that indicates that its semantics are such-and-such, which provides more informationa about its semantics than just its signature.
This allows the user to replace the type inferencing algorithm with a more powerful one, or one more suited to their domain, to assist is compiler-time verification of safety. note that the language of the typesystem, not just its behavior, can be modified.
modifying the language of the typesystem requires a high 'language difficulty level', because it makes things harder to read. Also, it could be abused (by providing an incorrect algorithm) to make ad-hoc polymorphism resolve in an unexpected way, causing the interpreter to behave differently from the compiler (e.g. to tell the compiler than something will be an Int when it will actually be a String, causing the compiler to choose polymorphism as if it would be an int, causing different behavior than the interpreter, who chooses the string version at runtime).
This provides various benefits. First, it allows Jasper to be efficiently improved, since we work on it in such a great high-level language. Second, it inspires us to create good metaprogramming facilities. Third, it ensures that the time spent working on the implementation is also time spent discovering Jasper's warts, which should help improve the language in the early days. Fourth, it allows us to more easily port the implementation to new platforms. Fifth, in ensures that the entire Jasper community is capable of understanding (and hence of contributing to) the Jasper implementation.
Jasper is garbage-collected, as this increases succinctness and safety. The GC algorithm should be modular (e.g. the user can choose which garbage collector is used), but the default should emphasize low latency, e.g. very short stop-the-world pauses, at the expense of lower throughput (this increases safety at the cost of performance).
I think "concurrent" generational GCs are good for this? Also, i've never noticed any pauses with Python, which uses reference counting, even though i've heard that in theory a single deallocation could cause an unbounded pause as reference counts are recursively decremented (couldn't this be done in a separate thread, though, rather than all at once, with no pauses at all?) I've also heard that hybrid generational garbage collectors that combine tracing for young generations with reference counting for old ones may be a good idea (Ulterior Reference Counting? although the paper still shows significant maximium pause times there).
Jasper has continuations, as this increases extensibility.
Unlike Python, there is no Global Interpreter Lock; multiple Jasper threads can coexist within the same process.
Jasper has green threads/coroutines/goroutines (suitable for the creation of a massive number of threads).
Like Clojure, Jasper may require a 'recur' directive to specify a tail call, it does not automatically detect and optimize tail calls. This is because if even Clojure felt that was a necessary concession to performance on contemporary VMs, then it probably is.
However, i've also heard that TCO is necessary for practical true continuations. i haven't thought through it yet myself. If so, then we'll have to do it.
I'd like Jasper to be suitable for massive parallelism, e.g. the Connection Machine. I am intrigued by this architecture because:
However, due to my lack of experience programming in such situations i'm sure i'll get this wrong.
One theory for why Common Lisp did not take over the world is that the lack of a canonical implemntation caused splintering ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5031802 ). In other words, it is postulated that a canonical implementation greatly increases communal gravity.
Jasper will have a single canonical implementation, which will be written in Jasper; however, other implementations will be possible (just as Python has Jython).
Not sure if we will support this. The idea is that we should be able to produce shared libraries that other programs written in C can use without knowing anything about Jasper. Apparently many higher-level languages have trouble with this. I don't quite understand what is required in order to achieve this, so i can't decide if it's worth it. Some possible prerequisites that i can think of are: