logoalt Hacker News

4k0hzyesterday at 5:44 AM4 repliesview on HN

I think the target application is writing the same algorithm in multiple places with a guarantee that the logic will be based on a single source of truth. Not unlike Protocol Buffers work to standardize data layout across platforms.

It still feels overcomplicated compared to the standard solution of writing a library in a compiled language you like, exposing a C ABI compatible interface, and hooking it up to any language that can work with that (i.e. any language).


Replies

Panzerschrekyesterday at 8:50 AM

> writing the same algorithm in multiple places with

This seems for me to be reasonable. Like for a video game with server written in Go/C++/Rust and client written in C#/Javascript, where the same calculations should be done on both sides.

BobbyJoyesterday at 5:53 AM

C code called from other languages has terrible ergonomics. Writing it sucks, debugging it sucks, maintaining it sucks.

I don't know if fusion is the solution, but I know C isn't.

show 1 reply
zigzag312yesterday at 6:26 AM

What about a better ABI abstraction?

show 1 reply
imtringuedyesterday at 6:51 AM

You don't need a C ABI here because the language could in theory generate both the library and the cross language bindings, the underlying mechanism then becomes a mere implementation detail.

I feel like there is a huge missed opportunity that Fusion Lang overlooked.