Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on programming-languages http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic programming-languages Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb People still use Lisp!?! Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:57:26 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0106046/2003/01/30.html#a220">Language of the year</A>. <BLOCKQUOTE cite=http://radio.weblogs.com/0108103/2003/01/30.html#a126><A href="http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/">The Pragmatic Programmer</A> suggests learning a new programming language (at least) once per year. Specifically, you should learn a language that changes the way you think about things - learning C# if you know Java doesn't count.[<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0108103/2003/01/30.html#a126">Joe's Jelly</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I've been debating this myself. My problem is that I try to learn about three languages a year, hence, 6 years after I first started learning Python, I haven't done anything useful with it. And that's part of learning a language; it doesn't do you any good to just read the book, you've got to do something with it. So I'm conciously trying to limit myself this year. I've already decided that my new book buying this year is done: I've got <A href="http://allconsuming.net/item.cgi?isbn=0596001673">The Python Cookbook</A>, <A href="http://allconsuming.net/item.cgi?isbn=0133708756">ANSI Common Lisp, and <A href="http://allconsuming.net/item.cgi?isbn=0262062186">How To Design Programs</A>. That I'm limiting myself to those 3 probably explains my problem. However, given the list, it's likely that the language of the year will be Python, Scheme, or Lisp. Python is probably the most practical, and I already have a passing familiarity. I started learning some Scheme last year so I've got a bit of a head start there. But I read the first 2 chapters of ANSI Common Lisp on <A href="http://www.paulgraham.com/acl.html">Paul Graham's website</A>, and half the 3rd chapter as previewed on Amazon, and I have to say that Paul got me excited about learning a new language for the first time in a long time. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0106046/">Gordon Weakliem's Radio Weblog</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I too have been on the brink of adopting Python.  I've crossed it's path a few times and been intrigued.  I wish Radio used Python instead of Usertalk, you'd think that with an Outliner as the built-in programming editor Radio would be an ideal home for Python scripting.  It'll never happen though. So Python was looking good.  Then I made the mistake of reading Chap 1 of "ANSI Common Lisp" and I have to say I'm hooked.  Guess I'll be looking for a good Windows based LISP implementation.  Any recommendations? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001115.html Too old to program XML? Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:22:24 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/2003/02/07.html#a1312">Cool Programming Language Concept: SuperX++</A>. <H3>Cool Programming Language Concept: SuperX++</H3> This is neat: Super X++.  It is a language where XML is the underlying programming construct as opposed to ASCII.  And, yes Virginia, it is Open Source.<A href="http://xplusplus.sourceforge.net/index.htm">[_Go_]</A> Here is a simple example from the FAQ: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> How do I code "Hello World!" in Superx++? The following code will be a full Superx++ program that returns the string "Hello World!" to the Superx++ client (whatever process calls a Superx++ program): <xpp>    <xout>Hello World!</xout> </xpp></BLOCKQUOTE> And here is a complex example: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> How do I define a class? A class in Superx++ is defined using the <A href="http://xplusplus.sourceforge.net/Lex/class.htm"><class></A> statement. An example follows: <class name="XTree" inherit="XPlant">    <construct>       <scope type="public">          <Chlorophylic>yes</Chlorophylic>       </scope>    </construct>    <scope type="public">       <func type="string" name="GetChlorophylic">          <body>             <return>                <eval object="Chlorophylic" />             </return>          </body>       </func>       <func type="void" name="SetChlorophylic">          <parm type="string" name="sVal" pass="val" />          <body>             <eval object="Chlorophylic">                <eval object="sVal" />             </eval>          </body>       </func>       <func type="int" name="GetAge">          <body>             <return>                <eval object="this" member="Age" />             </return>          </body>       </func>       <func type="void" name="SetAge">          <parm type="int" name="sVal" pass="val" />          <body>             <eval object="this" member="Age">                <eval object="sVal" />             </eval>          </body>       </func>    </scope>    <scope type="protected">       <var type="int" name="Age">0</var>    </scope> </class> The statement above declares a class called XTree which inherits from the class XPlant which contains an object called Chlorophylic. Every time an object of class XTree is instantiated it will be instantiated along with a contained object called Chlorophylic. The class XTree also defines four methods and one member variable. For more details on classes <A href="http://xplusplus.sourceforge.net/Lex/class.htm">click here</A>. </BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks to <A href="http://www.ddj.com/">Dr. Dobbs Journal</A> for turning me on to this. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/">The FuzzyBlog!</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I think I'm getting old 'cus Superx++ looks bloody horrible to me. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001140.html New-fangled XML gubbins Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:07:13 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2003/02/07.html#a730">Matt Mower</A> takes a look at <A href="http://xplusplus.sourceforge.net/index.htm">Superx++</A>, an OO programming language with an XML syntax, and finds it a bit new-fangled. I agree it looks terribly verbose, but I think there are some terrific advantages possible from this approach. XML is both easily human and computer readable, and sensible, lowering the technical bar to understanding. A terrific development toolset for manipulating XML programs could evolve from the format. Incorporating other XML documents is natural, whether they specify Data, Instructions, Web Services, or UI widgets. There's plenty of action is this area. <A href="http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/">Apache Cocoon</A> is "an XML publishing framework that raises the usage of XML and XSLT technologies for server applications to a new level." <A href="http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Data_Formats/Markup_Languages/XML/Applications/XUL/?tc=1">XUL</A> is Mozilla's XML UI language. <A href="http://www.laszlosystems.com/">Laszlo</A> is a Rich Internet Application Framework, utilizing XML for development, and piggybacking on Flash for execution [From the look of their <A href="http://www.laszlosystems.com/img/p_c_environment.jpg">screenshot</A>, it seems <A href="http://myway.com/">myWay</A> may be interested]. <A href="http://www.xwt.org/index.html">XWT</A> is a gui toolkit based in XML (mentioned in the great article <A href="http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/htmls_time_is_over_lets_move_on.php">HTML's Time is Over. Let's Move On.</A>). There's even been <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0100875/2002/12/17.html#a791">rumors</A> of Microsoft pursuing XML programming languages. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0100875/">Brain Off</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> I'd like to make a couple of clarifications: <OL> <LI>I didn't really take a look at SuperX++.  Or rather that's exactly what I did.  I looked at that chunk of code on the page and went "ugh!" <LI>I don't agree with the statement "XML is both easily human and...".  Computer readable?  Yes.  Human readable, gods no.  Not that example anyway.</LI></OL> I've had this argument before but so far I haven't seen any good reason for XML programming languages.  In conversation with the author of <A href="http://www.o-xml.org/objectbox/">ObjectBox</A> I wondered about using such a language for building advanced coding toolsets but I sure as hell don't want to be typing this stuff in!  You, of course, may type in whatever you like :) http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001144.html Can I be sceptical for just one more minute? Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:25:39 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <BLOCKQUOTE> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2003/02/10.html#a734">New-fangled XML gubbins</A>. I'd like to make a couple of clarifications: <OL> <LI>I didn't really take a look at SuperX++.  Or rather that's exactly what I did.  I looked at that chunk of code on the page and went "ugh!" <LI>I don't agree with the statement "XML is both easily human and...".  Computer readable?  Yes.  Human readable, gods no.  Not that example anyway.</LI></OL> I've had this argument before but so far I haven't seen any good reason for XML programming languages.  In conversation with the author of <A href="http://www.o-xml.org/objectbox/">ObjectBox</A> I wondered about using such a language for building advanced coding toolsets but I sure as hell don't want to be typing this stuff in!  You, of course, may type in whatever you like :)[<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A>] </BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I hesitated to type "human readable" :)! Though even in IE's xml renderer, readability is greatly improved. This particular language may be the best representative of the concept [paradoxically, this language has spwaned a <A href="http://www.topxml.com/code/default.asp?p=3&id=v20020930173054">varient</A> which doesn't use xml at all]. Intuitively, an XML programming language appeals to me. I see this type of programming as fairly high level, such as stitching services and data together into web applications in <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0100875/2002/12/19.html#a822">Recombinant Growth</A> -- not as a replacement for traditional programming language. Programming in an XML langauge should be easier, for the task at hand. Does this justify XML for programming? I need to put more thought into this intuition. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0100875/">Brain Off</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> One of the questions that springs to my mind is: Why XML?  Other than off-the-shelf parsers (and language parsing is not a big deal, a tool like <A href="http://www.antlr.org/">ANTLR</A> reduces this problem pretty quick and provides a whole lot more besides) what does having the language in XML really achieve? As I said in my earlier post the only future I see for this (long term) is if it makes it significantly easier to build coding toolsets such as refactoring engines and intelligent IDE's.  Maybe if these languages came with some kind of <A href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/">OWL</A> ontology to allow their comprehension by other languages or toolsets... Otherwise what's the point?  ASCII source is pretty easily transferred and I think XML tags can be a positive hindrance to comprehension (for which I cite the oft villified but repeated attempts to produce concise or simple XML variants).  But, hey, we can use namespaces to mix two different XML languages in one source file right? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001151.html Io, Io? What's all this then? Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:07:44 +0000 I've been casting about recently for the next language I will learn. I tried Lisp in 2004 and while it gave me a healthy respect for meta programming I didn't really click with it. Then in October 2004 I fell over Ruby one time too many and decided to give it a try. It was love at 3rd sight! Over the last year I've spent quite a lot of my free time working in Ruby and it has been very rewarding. Recently I implemented the weblog tool I am using now with Ruby and Rails. I think Ruby is great. However if learning Ruby has taught me anything it's that the greatest power has come from new ways to think about solving problems. For example I now routinely think in terms of blocks in a way I could never have conceived of when I was a Java developer. So, lately, I've started wondering what other tricks I can learn. It has been on my mind for a while to try Smalltalk. Much like Lisp, Smalltalk is kind of revered as a hallowed and sacred language from which many good things we now enjoy have flowed. However I've seen some talk about <a href="http://iolanguage.com/">Io</a> lately and especially about the <a href="http://tech.rufy.com/articles/2005/12/27/classes-are-just-a-prototype-pattern">advantages of prototype based OO</a>. Today Dave Fayram showed me some Io code that was very intriguing. I think Smalltalk is going to have to wait! I've downloaded the Io binaries for MacOSX and an Io bundle for TextMate and over the weekend I hope to find enough time to learn some of the syntax and get a feel for the prototypy goodness. Wish me luck! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00003126.html