From the article, it sounds like the Kx folks are working on the issues that led to the development of hobbes in the first place.
I’d be surprised if they’ve changed their opinions about type systems though (or bullying people with lawyers — those guys get nasty when their ideas are challenged).
Does hobbes have any kind of db or persistence functionality? As a programming language, k/kdb is nice (and I personally prefer it to APL and J), but without the db part I suspect that it wouldn't have been as popular (in the niches that it is popular).
Seems like a mostly eager haskell; am I correct? How does it compare performance-wise to ghc? (It obviously does much better on embedding and interfacing C++)
Yes there are persisted data structures and databases built on top of them. The whole type system applies to persisted data structures so you can make your own data structures and fill out a few type class instances to query them with plain list comprehensions (e.g. btree indexes are defined and queried this way in some internal tools).
Eager Haskell with a structural type system, deterministic garbage collection, and no overloading penalty, that would be a fair summary.
It'd be interesting to see how GHC would do in the same area, there would be some significant challenges. I haven't tried to use GHC there so I can't say.
I might be misinterpreting your message, but if not - Shakti is not made by Kx, which AW has been bought out of. Shakti is a new company (although AFAIK everyone there is ex-Kx)
https://github.com/Morgan-Stanley/hobbes
From the article, it sounds like the Kx folks are working on the issues that led to the development of hobbes in the first place.
I’d be surprised if they’ve changed their opinions about type systems though (or bullying people with lawyers — those guys get nasty when their ideas are challenged).