Eat Your Greens: A New Language for Makers
Eat Your Greens (EYG), a statically typed functional programming language, aims to bridge the gap between developers and non-professional developers, or “makers.” The language is designed to handle category 2 problems, such as deployment and running, automatically, allowing makers to focus on describing their problem.
This mirrors what happened to Excel, which solved category 2 problems and became the darling of end-user programming conversations. EYG takes a similar approach, removing issues around deploying and running, and letting makers focus on their problem.
The language’s design is a response to the recurring pattern amongst technically minded, but not professional, developers, who often struggle with category 2 problems. EYG’s focus on makers, rather than professional developers, sets it apart from other languages like Gleam, which is nominally typed and geared towards developers building applications.
EYG’s Decision Logic and Mechanics
EYG’s creator chose a type system that never forces a user to define a type ahead of time, making it optional to run. This decision is a trade-off between the benefits of static typing and the need for flexibility and ease of use for makers. The language also defines dependencies inline, identified by the hash of the module’s contents, to avoid dependency hell.
EYG’s design is driven by the need to provide a better experience for makers, who often don’t have the time or expertise to master category 2 problems. By handling these problems automatically, EYG enables makers to focus on building reliable, sharable programs.
The language’s structural typing is also a deliberate choice, designed to help the computer assist the user without requiring them to think about types ahead of time. This approach differs from Gleam’s nominal typing, which is better suited for professional developers rigorously describing a domain.
Winners, Losers, and Disrupted Parties
EYG’s focus on makers and end-user programming means that it may disrupt the market for professional development tools. Companies that rely on selling development tools to professional developers may need to adapt to this new market reality.
On the other hand, makers and end-users may benefit from EYG’s ease of use and flexibility. The language’s ability to handle category 2 problems automatically may also make it an attractive choice for companies that want to empower their non-technical employees to build software solutions.
The rise of EYG may also have implications for the broader programming language market. As more languages focus on end-user programming and makers, we may see a shift away from traditional development tools and towards more user-friendly solutions.
The Skeptical Case
One potential criticism of EYG is that it may not be suitable for large-scale development projects. The language’s focus on makers and end-user programming may limit its appeal to professional developers who require more advanced features and tools.
Additionally, EYG’s structural typing and optional type system may not provide the same level of rigor and reliability as other languages like Rust or Gleam. This could be a concern for companies that require high levels of reliability and security in their software solutions.
The Signal to Watch Next
One key indicator of EYG’s success will be its adoption rate among makers and end-users. If the language can gain traction and build a community of users, it may be a sign that the market is shifting towards more user-friendly development solutions.
Another signal to watch will be the development of EYG’s ecosystem, including the availability of libraries, frameworks, and tools. If the language can build a robust ecosystem, it may be a sign that it is becoming a serious player in the programming language market.
What’s your take on this? Drop your perspective in the comments below.
By Alex Mercer, Senior Tech Analyst at TrendFlashy
Ready to launch your own asset?
Check out our guide on Building a Profitable Online Business.
