[HN Gopher] Forscape - A Language and Editor for Scientific Comp...
___________________________________________________________________
Forscape - A Language and Editor for Scientific Computation
Author : faresahmed
Score : 41 points
Date : 2024-10-15 10:14 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| auggierose wrote:
| Insane. This must have been so much work, and it looks great, but
| I know I will never use it.
| WillAdams wrote:
| Why this rather than LyX, Texmacs, Jupyter Notebook, LaTeX (and a
| suitable editor), or Typst (and a suitable editor)?
| Onavo wrote:
| If you asking this, you are the wrong audience. All academic
| journals accept submissions in Microsoft Word, this is a
| similar tool targeted at the WYSIWYG crowd.
| zokier wrote:
| you both are missing the main point here, Forscape is not for
| writing documents, but for writing executable code.
| wdkrnls wrote:
| TeXmacs can execute code too. Honestly, if it had 1/10 the
| community of Emacs, I would be using it for everything from
| running my window manager to driving my statistical
| simulations. It's already what Stallman keeps asking Emacs
| to become.
| zokier wrote:
| Code typography is such a neglected area, I'm glad to see any
| projects that touch on that. This reminds me of Suns Fortress
| language, which was designed also for scientific computing (afaik
| more in HPC sense), and also allowed rendering code into pdf with
| improved typography. Unfortunately lot of the original Fortress
| resources have linkrotted away, but there are some examples in
| this presentation (by Guy Steele!)
| https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/150FP/archive/neal-glew/mcrt/F...
| WillAdams wrote:
| Arguably the most successful effort in this space is:
|
| http://literateprogramming.com/
|
| I use it in a current project using LaTeX:
|
| https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview
| zokier wrote:
| I checked the linked PDF[1] as an example, and the codeblocks
| are still just basic plain monospaced blocks with practically
| no typesetting done to them; very different from something
| like Fortress, or indeed this Forscape
|
| [1] https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview/blob/main/gcode
| pre...
| xelxebar wrote:
| This is super cool! Recently, I've been musing about the
| potential ergonomics of programming directly with rich
| typography, and here Forscape's kind of gone and done it.
|
| The project seems to be specifically targeting working
| scientists, but I think there's real potential for using
| mathematical and math-like notation in a general programming
| language. The array language family does adopt a few of the
| affordances from math, and even that partial pick-up gives them
| some ergonomic features not seen elsewhere.
|
| At the moment, we're kind of stuck in the paradigm of linear
| input, only using very limited typography for somewhat dumb
| syntax highlighting. Math-like notation is really nice at
| conveying semantics and intent in ways that are really
| challenging in current languages. For example, sub- and
| superscripts effectively act as function parameters but give
| extra freedom for conveying the different meaning and use of said
| parameters. Things like Haskell's generic infix syntax, named
| parameters, optional arguments, etc. can be seen as ways of
| trying to work around current limitations.
|
| The biggest question for me is input, which Forscape seems to
| address quite nicely. We don't just want to typeset our code
| prettily, we want to have all the affordances of advanced
| typography directly available _as we code_.
|
| I'd love to hear user stories from Forscape: Do you like the
| mouse-oriented editor experience or do you prefer keyboard
| shortcuts? What is easiest for you to express in Forscape the
| language? What is most challenging? Where does the system diverge
| most from the natural expression? For those with a programming or
| CS background, how easy is it to reason about memory access and
| execution? Etc.
|
| Thanks for sharing!
| cobbal wrote:
| Mathematica also has some fairly advanced typographic syntax.
| Matrices, subscripts, integral signs, with a decent input
| system to match. Type <ESC>dint<ESC> to get a definite integral
| with placeholders.
|
| One particularly nice thing about it is that it's completely
| optional sugar over a lispy "FullForm" syntax, and it's easy to
| convert between the two.
|
| I'd encourage everyone to play with it, but it's sadly non-
| free.
| Kye wrote:
| Is the name a play on Farscape, or is that coincidence?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-15 23:00 UTC)