Posted by amenn 2 days ago
Site + book: https://yon-lang.org Repo: https://github.com/yon-language/yon (tag v1.0.0)
Happy to answer anything: the topos dialect, why a lattice rather than a hash, what the categorical constructs lower to, what broke along the way.
1. Yon's documentation mentions "Homotopy type theory:"
> the runnable HoTT fragment is refl/pair/fst/snd
These are basic features of martin-lof type theory, not homotopy type theory. The documentation makes no reference of an interval type, which is generally the way to go for decidable type-checking in HoTT without univalence as an opaque axiom.
Pi types are mentioned, but Yon does not have dependent types. From what I can tell, they are polymorphic, maybe even just simply-typed (except for identity types under Pi). See here in the repo: https://github.com/yon-language/yon/blob/523e363a4a00e8da1410a2521b1d7d1309d360ce/frontend/ast.ml#L37
The datatype Ty only refers to other Ty's. Thus, it is not dependent. Terms cannot appear in types. Pi is explicitly indexed by a type defining its domain and codomain. A pi type is not a pi type if its codomain cannot depend on its domain.
2. Normalization can fail in Yon.
Yon's docs say that its universe of propositions has booleans (https://yon-lang.org/book/heyting-core?_highlight=prop). It also says its logic is intuitionistic (AKA, constructive). However, it also says the logical connectives on booleans are CLASSICAL. This implies law of excluded middle, which is NOT constructive without careful sandboxing (e.g., Linear logic). Yon dangerously allows propositions to be lifted to booleans. If I am interpreting correctly (docs are very vague), this means propositions can be lifted to terms. This causes an obvious failure of normalization due to assumed proof irrelevance (otherwise Prop would not be distinguished) (also see Coquand's paper on this https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08174).
3. Yon's type definitional equality does not actually reduce types.
See here. This is the function used by the type-checker to check if types are equal. https://github.com/yon-language/yon/blob/523e363a4a00e8da141...
No reduction actually occurs, conveniently because none of the types actually contain terms (that is, it is simply typed). Yon claims to be dependently-typed. See this in the repo: https://github.com/yon-language/yon/blob/523e363a4a00e8da1410a2521b1d7d1309d360ce/frontend/ast.ml#L21
> Types in Yon Core kernel — the small dependent type theory used for the operational semantics.
Suppose I'm reading the source code wrong. Conveniently, the comment one line below reveals, once again, that the "type theory" is simply-typed:
> * T, U ::= Type_n universe of level n
> * | Pi(x:T). U dependent function
Pi types eliminate into a FIXED type that does not depend on x. This means there is also no purpose for having a universe hierarchy.
To confirm, I scoured the docs a bit for any examples using Pi types or Sigma types. I searched the docs, and could not find any, besides this example:
> world W { Code is X }> place Account in W { balance number }
> fun takes_sub(s: { a : Account where Pi(x: Account). Pi(y: Account). Id(Account, x, y) }): number { return 0 }
> fun main(): number { return 0 }
Notably, the identity is the only constructor for Ty indexed by a term. That is, Pi types can ONLY eliminate into the identity. What if I want my Pi type to eliminate into anything else living in Prop? e.g., an existential like \forall (x : Nat), \exists (y : Nat), x < y. Unfortunately impossible in Yon.
This project is clearly produced by AI, and clearly dangerously incorrect. Do not use this for anything serious.
Various priors inoculate me from feeling some of the rejection expressed in other comments. I knew Sammy Eilenberg, perhaps the most famous mathematician to work at Columbia University. He hired me. With friends, I ran into him one night out in NYC, and in his 70's we all stayed out past dawn. His late career focused on topos theory, and everyone in the building politely rolled their eyes. Those are working mathematicians having an understandable reaction; most reactions to topos theory here are simply uninformed. The evolution of programming languages has lead from the lambda calculus to many forms of category theory. Topos theory would not be a surprise.
The Leech lattice? Could be a brilliant idea. Compare Lenstra's elliptic curve factorization algorithm. Sometimes famous landmarks in mathematics have remarkable properties; mining them for algorithmic advantage is no different than mining asteroids for rare metals.
The involvement of AI is most problematic. Mathematics fears being swamped by mediocre AI-authored papers, but the truth is "publish or perish" has long lead to mathematics being swamped by mediocre papers. Bad artists are losing jobs, but good artists are working faster.
I welcome a new era of programming language design, where AI makes rapid prototyping a reality. We just have to take sharing this work with a grain of salt. Stop reading when you lose interest, but welcome the churn!
What LLMs are doing now is allowing people to take prototypes and to publish them with an entire 200 page book no one (not even the author) has read, and a polished-looking website filled with marketing verbiage and a cute logo.
What would be interesting to me would be to see the process of rapidly refining the design, but I keep checking back on these "Here's my exciting new 400kLOC LLM language project I made in 3 weeks" and they all seem to die very shortly after the splashy announcements a few weeks later, as the author seemingly lost interest.
Which is not surprising because that's the way it always went with little languages -- writing a language has always been a marathon, not a sprint. It's just before, a 200 page book was an indicator of author dedication. Now, a 200 page book is just more bytes for digital kindling.
> Slots are stable for the life of the process; the heap grows with distinct content only.
So how is a program supposed to handle lots of unique content? Like a web server handling user requests?
So if you want to define a world, I expect you to tell me how to supply objects + morphisms + the composition law + the site structure. I don't know what a "semantic site" is, just what a "site" is. You'd need to define it. Anyway, we then get to our first examples of declaring worlds:
world Currency { Code is EUR, USD }
world Status { State is on, off }
This maybe gives me the first bit of data we need for a site. Definitely not the rest. Then we hit this world Sub subset of Currency
Two issues with this. One is stylistic. Why on earth would you call it a "subset"? It's not a set! "subworld" is the obvious choice... But the real issue is that like the initial definition, this doesn't tell me how to build `Sub`. I need to know which objects and morphisms of Currency to include into the category Sub? What's the site structure?So now I think, "OK, maybe you just declare part of the structure and fill it in later, before you actually use it..."
But then your example disproves that notion! You have
world Shop { Code is X }
place Account in Shop {
balance number
owner String
}
with no mention of Account when you declared Shop, I'm still not sure what Code or X are, and then you give what is seemingly supposed to be some working code fun main(): number {
be a holds new Account { balance 40 owner "ada" }
be _p holds String.print(a.owner)
return a.balance + 2
}
So your motivating example really kills off the interest from your two main communities that would use this thing: 1) category theorists have no idea what you're talking about, because nothing here looks like categories - there are no morphisms, no site structure 2) computer/software folks look at your example and think "why on earth would I learn topos theory to do something that sure looks like OOP"I think a "topos inspired programming language" would be kind of cool if you could pull it off, but I think you really need to figure out how to sell it in the docs to at least one of the two communities above.
Can't help I've just been a HN lurker so far :)
> Yon allocates into xleech2, a content-addressed heap whose geometry is the Leech lattice Λ24: exactly 196,560 slots per heap.
What is the computational complexity of memory allocation into this Leech lattice? What applications did you have in mind where making allocation a maths problem in order to save time on comparisons makes sense? What is going to happen when a program exhausts your little heap?
The more I try to understand, the more it appears that they are a hash table (hash-addressed-structure to be pedantic), but with way more complicated backing than a hash table.
It's such a weird mixture of poetry and math that it's hard to tell what's going on. I suspect the author does not speak English as a first language (or at all?) and has used an LLM to generate this stuff.