[andsoitis]

> Because Moonbit is a modern language, while AssemblyScript is carrying forward the mistakes of the past.

No language has "no mistakes".

For instance, let's take a language like Scala, which appeared 20 years ago. Has it avoided mistakes of the past? Or lets take Rust, which appeared 8 years ago. Is it "perfect"? Same with Moonbit; it will make tradeoffs and mistakes and whatnot.

Mistakes are not always technical in nature either. They can be mistakes in positioning, strategy, community, governance, poor documentation, etc.

[chefandy]

Modern doesn't imply perfect— just that it uses recent advancements.

[coder543]

In most conversations, TypeScript generally seems to be considered a fairly "modern" language. TypeScript offers a variety of rather advanced type system features, and AssemblyScript is based on it, so by extension, AssemblyScript should be fairly "modern" too.

Based on the limited docs that are available[0], Moonbit appears to be using C++-style "generics" that are just simple template substitutions (no constraints), which is far less "modern" than what TypeScript offers.

Honestly, I don't think imprecise words like "modern" are particularly useful, helpful, or good for discussions like this. "Pattern matching" has been a feature of certain programming languages for decades, so is that truly a "modern" feature?

[0]: https://moonbitlang.com/docs/syntax/#generics

[chefandy]

I'm not saying it's any more modern than any other language— I pointed out that being imperfect doesn't preclude modernity. Nobody even claimed it was perfect to begin with.