Show HN: Fuse – statically typed functional programming language (fuselang.org)

121 points by the_unproven ↗ HN
Hi HN! I've been working on the fuse programming language, it's a statically typed purely functional language with higher-kinder types and ad-hoc polymorphism. It compiles to the GRIN whole-program optimizer, producing LLVM-generated native code.

Fuse supports ADTs, Generics, Type Methods, Traits, Pattern matching etc. all in a functional style with no mutations.

I’ve been developing the language for 5 years, with code written in Scala. I’ve started coding the language from the base of System F that was implemented as part of the book: Types and Programming Languages (tapl). And then extending with concepts such as Bidirectional Type Checking with Higher-Rank Polymorphism.

I’ve mainly drawn inspiration from Rust, Haskell, Scala and Python (in terms of syntax). It all started because I wanted a language that has Rust-like concepts such as: ADT, Traits, Impl block syntax, etc. but have the pure functional semantics.

I'd would love feedback on the language design and its general usage.

21 comments

[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 40.1 ms ] thread
It's nice to see a GRIN backend in the wild!

It looks like a tidy little functional language - a small, easily grasped syntax surface and generally clear semantics. That you've got it to the point that it can compile and run proper programs is a great achievement for a solo dev project!

The string type in the standard library isn't Unicode-aware, might be worth just noting that. Unicode support can be a big undertaking, but considering whether you'll add it later or not might affect your library design now.

I don't really understand why you have an IO monad. The language isn't pure - `.exec()` means any function can perform IO actions no matter its type signature - so what's IO really for?

Do `impl` additions export? What happens when two libraries add the same function name with different signatures (or just bodies!) to a type's `impl` ?

Is currying automatic? It doesn't seem to be, but, eg, the `sum(x: i32, y: i32)` function theoretically could be called as `sum(5)` to create a closure, but this isn't a documented feature if so.

The website's font is using ligatures, not unicode operator symbols - I'd personally find it much clearer to use a non-ligature font to show what's really there, but that's immaterial to the language.

I wish you took Haskell's syntax as such. Why did you mix rust and possibly other stuff with it?
i loved haskell but cross platform haskell deployment is still pain
Love to see a real-world example of GRIN!

    trait Functor[A]:
      fun map[B](self, f: A -> B) -> Self[B];
This looks a little wacky to me. I see that you can write HKTs in their η-long form and refer to them unapplied (`Functor`). But I don't understand how I would use this syntax to attach something to the trait that _doesn't_ depend on `A`. For (a silly) example,

    trait SizedFunctor[A]: Functor[A]:
      type Size;
      fun size(self) -> Size;
How do I know that `List[A]::Size` is the same type as `List[B]::Size`?

Relatedly, I want to read `Self` in there as ‘the thing that implements `Functor[A]`’ (e.g. List[A]`), but that makes `Self[B]`, instantiated, mean `List[A][B]`, which I think should be a kind error.

found tree-sitter-fuse in the org, updated yesterday. is editor support next, like an lsp over the scala typechecker?
Congrats on the release! Really cool to see a working GRIN backend. I'm definitely bookmarking this to give it a spin as soon as I get some spare time.
Superficially, I find the syntax very untuitive to read. Most languages opt to use <> for typevariables. Is there a specific reason you chose to deviate from that and use []?
Scala and a few others use `[]` (the compiler itself is written in Scala)
Great project - clean and simple syntax, pure functional language, uses GRIN framework.
Off topic: what is the most convenient statically typed language that don't require compilation/transpilation? To run instead of bash or Python, but types are mandatory (not just hints like python).

I know jShell has been here like 10 years, but I'm not sure it's convenient to quickly write to a file, query a url, etc.

.ksh for Kotlin? Typescript (through Deno)? Lua?

I would suggest adding objective metrics. How fast is this compiler? How long is the longest fuse program? How long does it take to compile? How fast at runtime is the fuse implementation of several benchmark programs compared to semantically equivalent programs written in other languages?

How expressive is fuse? How long are equivalent programs written in fuse/rust/scala/haskell?

Can you show me a bug that the fuse compiler catches but some or all of the competition doesn't?

Nice to see a pretty advanced language at frontpage of HN!

From what I understand, GRIN does some parts of supercompilation [1] during optimization process. Supercompilation can prove equivalence of functional programs [2] modulo termination. So you can have something interesting and useful in almost no time. ;)

  [1] https://themonadreader.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/super-final.pdf
  [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225252220_Proving_the_Equivalence_of_Higher-Order_Terms_by_Means_of_Supercompilation
It appears that Fuse does not have user-defined operators. Am I right? If so, it is a major obstacle in creating embedded languages.
This is great, I haven't been introduced in the notion of supercompiliation. Reading the papers you've listed and going through GRIN's paper [1] it ticks the boxes in terms of laziness and graph reduction. To keep the implementation of Fuse simple I've decided on using strict evaluation of GRIN programs instead of laziness, with my assumption that it would harder to debug/reason on the program. However, this was one of my next improvements: switching to a lazy evaluation with similar semantics to Haskell programs.

> It appears that Fuse does not have user-defined operators. Am I right?

Not yet, but I left this mechanism completely open. As operators are defined as type classes with their signs as method definitions.

  [1] http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/grin-compiler/grin/blob/master/papers/The%20GRIN%20Project.pdf
A nit, but fusefs is a well-known thing, so you'll face some naming confusion.
Looks clean! In impl blocks, how do you tell apart generic and concrete types? Is it possible for Foo to implement From[Bar] or Into[Baz]?
What would you say is its key value proposition compared to other languages?
Can I write a game using OpenGL in this language? Does its functional purity allow this?
Just curious, what made you choose GRIN? I haven't heard of it but it looks neat!
Congrats on the project! So basically, you wanted Haskell with some of the best ergonomic features of Rust, like traits and impl blocks?