| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348872 is a reply to message #348865] |
Thu, 20 July 2017 19:46   |
Andy Leighton
Messages: 203
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2017 22:29:35 GMT, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-07-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's 10th
>>>> anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the following to C
>>>> is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But seems there was no
>>>> follow up to C yet.
>>>
>>> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to also
>>> be C.
>>>
>>> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>
>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>> 2057.
Yep despite D's age it has never really made that much of an impact.
> Wot about Go?.. Fairly simple typed in things seem very fast.
Go is pretty nice. Rust is worth a look too.
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348878 is a reply to message #348850] |
Thu, 20 July 2017 21:50 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <slrnon20n3.vh.mausg@smaus.xxx>, mausg@mail.com says...
>
> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>
>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>> hands-on system admin.
>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>
>
> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
> come out.
You know, there is a programming language intended for kids.
<https://scratch.mit.edu/>
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348881 is a reply to message #348819] |
Thu, 20 July 2017 22:16 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <slrnon10gg.rnl.mausg@smaus.xxx>, mausg@mail.com says...
>
> On 2017-07-20, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnon0juc.18s.mausg@smaus.xxx>, mausg@mail.com says...
>>>
>>> On 2017-07-19, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> I don't like HTML being called a "programming language". It's a markup
>>>> lnaguage, it's not a program. One reason to move it elsewhere is that in
>>>> 1996, when we briefly had a "Freenet" in Montreal, they made it sound like
>>>> a programming language that required some level of effort to pursue it. I
>>>> think that was a downfall, people saw "programming" and avoided it. It's
>>>> about layout. And I'm not sure something learned from HTML helps to move
>>>> to a programming language.
>>>>
>>>> There is a definite need for people who can make webpages, but programming
>>>> is something else.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any". On thinking
>>> of it later, I would say that it would be hard to beat the old BASICs
>>> for that, that a child could type in, run, and see instant results.
>>> Unfortunatly, I have no books on BASIC, is there even a BASIC available
>>> for Windoze?. I like Ruby myself at the moment,.
>>>
>>> There is a hexagram availaable for the iChing, which is something like,
>>> "Difficulty at the Beginning, the superior man strive to improve."
>>
>> BASIC is built into Microsoft Office. It is a highly extended
>> implementation that can control Office and also attach to other software
>> that provides COM interface.
>>
>> A somewhat different BASIC is also one of the languages supported in Visual
>> Studio, which is free for personal and limited commercial use. Neither of
>> these is interactive though.
>>
>> If you want a popular language today that you can type in and see instant
>> results, look at Python.
>>
>>
>
> Python may have problems with two things, the 2->3 divide (which
> learners can solve by only dealing with 3), and the indentation issue,
> which is convenient when one is used to it),,
> Whole idea of command line convenient languages would be learners
> trying to mentally connect these with the typical Windows click-n-run stuff.
If the documentation was better and it wasn't so damned expensive,
APL*PLUS/Win would be a decent option. Once you understand how its Windows
interaction works it's kind of fun to type a command and have a window pop
up, type another one and a control appears in that window, etc. While
there are other APLs out there, none of the rest seem to be as well
integrated into Windows.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348888 is a reply to message #348862] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 03:34 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:18:09 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's
>>> 10th anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the
>>> following to C is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But
>>> seems there was no follow up to C yet.
>>
>> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to
>> also be C.
>>
>> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>
> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
Yep D came too late, C++ and Java were well established by the time
D surfaced and it never gained enough momentum to become mainstream which
is a pity because it seems more expressive and cleaner than either C++ or
Java (especially Java with all the conventions bolted on).
I've liked the look of it for a long time, and never found a real
use for it - this also seems to be a common sentiment.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348889 is a reply to message #348888] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 04:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Melzzzzz
On 2017-07-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:18:09 -0400
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's
>>>> 10th anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the
>>>> following to C is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But
>>>> seems there was no follow up to C yet.
>>>
>>> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to
>>> also be C.
>>>
>>> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>
>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>
> Yep D came too late, C++ and Java were well established by the time
> D surfaced and it never gained enough momentum to become mainstream which
> is a pity because it seems more expressive and cleaner than either C++ or
> Java (especially Java with all the conventions bolted on).
>
> I've liked the look of it for a long time, and never found a real
> use for it - this also seems to be a common sentiment.
D is nice, C++11 borrowed lot of things from D, but what hampers D is bad
implementation. Java as lousy as it it has excellent implementation and
same could be said for C++. There is ldc(llvm based) and gdc (gcc based)
but they are never up to date with all features.
>
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348891 is a reply to message #348863] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 06:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 20/07/2017 23:25, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-07-20, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20/07/2017 21:22, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>>> > that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>>> > a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>>>
>>>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>>>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>>>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>>>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>>>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>>>> hands-on system admin.
>>>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>>>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>>>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>>>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
>>> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
>>> come out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Pace that it uses Reverse Common Sense, how about FORTH?
>>
>
> Haw, haw, ha!
>
> I am reminded of the Arab prince, whose favourite daughter, when visiting on
> his yacht, moored at Nice, wanted to learn how to drive a car, so a top of
> the range Mercedes was bought, and an area of Nice was cleared of traffic, she
> started up the automatic car, didn't make it around the first corner, got bored
> and went home. I am told the Merc is still in a garage in Nice. Moral?,,
> Don't depend on children keeping up an interest.
>
>
Generally I'm strongly opposed to FORTH being presented as an ideal
language for control purposes, because it results in a rat's nest that
is expensive to maintain other than by the original author.
HOWEVER, because it presents a language together with a simple
operating environment, it can be an easy starter for those not
grounded in the whole world of computing.
The analogy that I use to oppose FORTH in industry is that it
is easy to understand laying one brick upon a bed of mortar
but it is far from easy to build a hospital complex, and you
don't start building a hospital complex by starting off in
one corner of a field and start laying bricks without further
thought.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348892 is a reply to message #348851] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 08:29 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:38:07 AM UTC-4, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>
>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any". On thinking
>> of it later, I would say that it would be hard to beat the old BASICs
>> for that, that a child could type in, run, and see instant results.
>> Unfortunatly, I have no books on BASIC, is there even a BASIC available
>> for Windoze?. I like Ruby myself at the moment,.
>
> QBASIC used to be included with Windows on the CD, but I don't know
> if it still is. Perhaps it can be downloaded directly from MS.
> It's not that big.
>
> BASIC is powerful in that just a few simple lines of code will
> do a lot of arithmetic. Admittedly since kids today have calculators,
> it's not as impressive.
Of course it is. You only have to debug once before having a
chunk of code which does the same thing. A calculator's
MTBF is one keystroke.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348893 is a reply to message #348859] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 08:29 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:55:05 -0500, JimP. wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:42:37 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like HTML being called a "programming language". It's a markup
>>> lnaguage, it's not a program. One reason to move it elsewhere is that in
>>> 1996, when we briefly had a "Freenet" in Montreal, they made it sound like
>>> a programming language that required some level of effort to pursue it. I
>>> think that was a downfall, people saw "programming" and avoided it. It's
>>> about layout. And I'm not sure something learned from HTML helps to move
>>> to a programming language.
>>>
>>> There is a definite need for people who can make webpages, but programming
>>> is something else.
>>
>> Indeed. Most html tutorial sites I went to when it came out called it
>> mark up as well.
>
> I would say to call something a programming language it has either have
> to have loops, branches and (what was the third?), or all of that. HTML
> doesn't have any of it. Different for JavaScript then.
A Jaquard card wasn't a program by that definition.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348894 is a reply to message #348850] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 08:29 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>
>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>> hands-on system admin.
>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>
>
> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
> come out.
The Chinese Children's Palaces were teaching their 5-8 year
old kids Smalltalk.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348897 is a reply to message #348891] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 08:37 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-21, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/2017 23:25, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-07-20, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2017 21:22, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>>>> > mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>
>
> Generally I'm strongly opposed to FORTH being presented as an ideal
> language for control purposes, because it results in a rat's nest that
> is expensive to maintain other than by the original author.
>
> HOWEVER, because it presents a language together with a simple
> operating environment, it can be an easy starter for those not
> grounded in the whole world of computing.
>
> The analogy that I use to oppose FORTH in industry is that it
> is easy to understand laying one brick upon a bed of mortar
> but it is far from easy to build a hospital complex, and you
> don't start building a hospital complex by starting off in
> one corner of a field and start laying bricks without further
> thought.
>
>
There is one corridor in St. James[1] Hospital that is, counting my steps,
about 130 yards long, While limping that length, I estimated that if
one fired a .22long at one end, the bullet would hit the ground before
it reached the other end. I am not sure that it was not designed as you
describe.
(There was a story that a department in the British government, during
the Raj, that had plans designed for hospitals in India, and Ireland,
and the plans were mixed up, with the Irish one had draughts, and the
Indian was always hot and stuffy).
I read that FORTH was designed initially to control a telescope.
[1] Dublin Hospital, with the most expensive parking lot in Europe,
T'is rumored that sometimes relations will smother dying people before
they go bankrupt paying for parking.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348898 is a reply to message #348865] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 08:41 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mausg@mail.com writes:
> On 2017-07-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's 10th
>>>> anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the following to C
>>>> is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But seems there was no
>>>> follow up to C yet.
>>>
>>> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to also
>>> be C.
>>>
>>> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>
>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>
>
> Wot about Go?.. Fairly simple typed in things seem very fast.
There is always BrainFuck <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck>
Hello world:
++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-] >>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348903 is a reply to message #348894] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 09:39 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-21, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>>
>>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>>> hands-on system admin.
>>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>>
>>
>> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
>> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
>> come out.
>
> The Chinese Children's Palaces were teaching their 5-8 year
> old kids Smalltalk.
>
> /BAH
Would that be part of their population control program... Bore them
stiff? (Sorry, I knw nothing about smalltalk, except it influenced Ruby)
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348904 is a reply to message #348898] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 09:40 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com writes:
>> On 2017-07-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's 10th
>>>> > anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the following to C
>>>> > is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But seems there was no
>>>> > follow up to C yet.
>>>>
>>>> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>>> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to also
>>>> be C.
>>>>
>>>> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>>
>>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>>> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>>
>>
>> Wot about Go?.. Fairly simple typed in things seem very fast.
>
> There is always BrainFuck <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck>
>
> Hello world:
>
> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-] >>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
>
Or is that Perl :)
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348906 is a reply to message #348904] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 10:42 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
GreyMaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
> On 2017-07-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>> On 2017-07-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>>> > Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's 10th
>>>> >> anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the following to C
>>>> >> is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But seems there was no
>>>> >> follow up to C yet.
>>>> >
>>>> > D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>>> > elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to also
>>>> > be C.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>>>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>>>> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>>>
>>>
>>> Wot about Go?.. Fairly simple typed in things seem very fast.
>>
>> There is always BrainFuck <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck>
>>
>> Hello world:
>>
>> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-] >>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
>>
> Or is that Perl :)
Apparently, you have zero idea what Perl even looks like:
# create target hash for tracks and cd numbers
my %cddh; # cd tracks hash
my %cddi; # cds by cd no
foreach (@cdda) {
my ($cd,$artist,$album,$file) = (split('/',$_))[4..7];
my $hkey="$artist/$album/$file";
$cddh{$hkey}="1";
$cddi{$cd}++; # accum no tracks on the cd
}
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348912 is a reply to message #348893] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 12:35 |
bbreynolds
Messages: 18
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:30:15 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:55:05 -0500, JimP. wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:42:37 -0400, Michael Black <DELETED>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't like HTML being called a "programming language". It's a markup
>>>> lnaguage, it's not a program. One reason to move it elsewhere is that in
>>>> 1996, when we briefly had a "Freenet" in Montreal, they made it sound like
>>>> a programming language that required some level of effort to pursue it. I
>>>> think that was a downfall, people saw "programming" and avoided it. It's
>>>> about layout. And I'm not sure something learned from HTML helps to move
>>>> to a programming language.
>>>>
>>>> There is a definite need for people who can make webpages, but programming
>>>> is something else.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Most html tutorial sites I went to when it came out called it
>>> mark up as well.
>>
>> I would say to call something a programming language it has either have
>> to have loops, branches and (what was the third?), or all of that. HTML
>> doesn't have any of it. Different for JavaScript then.
>
> A Jaquard card wasn't a program by that definition.
>
> /BAH
But a set of Jaquard cards strung together operated as a programmed loop.
Bruce B. Reynolds, Horsham PA
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348918 is a reply to message #348891] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 13:04 |
Andy Leighton
Messages: 203
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:01:35 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/2017 23:25, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Pace that it uses Reverse Common Sense, how about FORTH?
>>>
>>
>> Haw, haw, ha!
>>
>> I am reminded of the Arab prince, whose favourite daughter, when visiting on
>> his yacht, moored at Nice, wanted to learn how to drive a car, so a top of
>> the range Mercedes was bought, and an area of Nice was cleared of traffic, she
>> started up the automatic car, didn't make it around the first corner, got bored
>> and went home. I am told the Merc is still in a garage in Nice. Moral?,,
>> Don't depend on children keeping up an interest.
>
> Generally I'm strongly opposed to FORTH being presented as an ideal
> language for control purposes, because it results in a rat's nest that
> is expensive to maintain other than by the original author.
>
> HOWEVER, because it presents a language together with a simple
> operating environment, it can be an easy starter for those not
> grounded in the whole world of computing.
How about a more modern concatenative language? Something like Factor?
OK it still requires programmer discipline (and RPN) - but the wide
selection of libraries including graphics and UI also makes it a bit
more approachable for the beginner. Easier to get up and running and
writing small simple games (it was originally developed as a scripting
language for a game).
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348920 is a reply to message #348894] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 13:27 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, jmfbahciv wrote:
> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>>
>>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>>> hands-on system admin.
>>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>>
>>
>> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
>> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
>> come out.
>
> The Chinese Children's Palaces were teaching their 5-8 year
> old kids Smalltalk.
>
But hasn't Smalltalk faded? I've not been paying attention, but it seems
like there's been a move away from some older languages, for reasons that
aren't so strong.
So Python seems to have replaced BASIC. Scratch seems to be the new
"kid's language", though it's derived from Smalltalk. I was going to say
the same people did both, but Smalltalk came out of Xerox Parc, while
Scratch is MIT.
There are differences between some languages, C is different from
BASICbut and so is FORTH, but others seem to have relatively small
differences. So it's not clear if the "new" language that takes over is
so much better, or if it's just something else that causes its rise.
There was a time when TRAC was promoted by some, Ted Nelson talks about it
in "Computer Lib" and I more recently saw a mention of it in an old
CoEvolution Quarterly. But all I remember about it is that the owner made
a big fuss about it being a trademarked name, so one had to include the
trademark symbol. I can't see how it could go far with a start like that,
and most people nowadays haven't heard of TRAC. But it seemed like an
attempt at another language, except instead of being "open", it wasn't, so
it never went far.
Other languages almost seem cooked up to avoid such things, an almost like
something else language.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348923 is a reply to message #348918] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 13:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 21/07/2017 18:04, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:01:35 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20/07/2017 23:25, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pace that it uses Reverse Common Sense, how about FORTH?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Haw, haw, ha!
>>>
>>> I am reminded of the Arab prince, whose favourite daughter, when visiting on
>>> his yacht, moored at Nice, wanted to learn how to drive a car, so a top of
>>> the range Mercedes was bought, and an area of Nice was cleared of traffic, she
>>> started up the automatic car, didn't make it around the first corner, got bored
>>> and went home. I am told the Merc is still in a garage in Nice. Moral?,,
>>> Don't depend on children keeping up an interest.
>>
>> Generally I'm strongly opposed to FORTH being presented as an ideal
>> language for control purposes, because it results in a rat's nest that
>> is expensive to maintain other than by the original author.
>>
>> HOWEVER, because it presents a language together with a simple
>> operating environment, it can be an easy starter for those not
>> grounded in the whole world of computing.
>
> How about a more modern concatenative language? Something like Factor?
> OK it still requires programmer discipline (and RPN) - but the wide
> selection of libraries including graphics and UI also makes it a bit
> more approachable for the beginner. Easier to get up and running and
> writing small simple games (it was originally developed as a scripting
> language for a game).
>
TCL, "tickle", has good library support and ISTR comes with a number
of games.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348927 is a reply to message #348922] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:17 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:52:47 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see no humor at all in making fun of Perl being cryptic.
> Regular expressions can be cryptic.
> Perl, no so much.
Oh Perl can be very cryptic - it can also be wonderfully clear.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348928 is a reply to message #348906] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:05 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:42:22 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> GreyMaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>
>>> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-] >>.>---.+++++++..++
>>> +.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
>>>
>> Or is that Perl :)
>
> Apparently, you have zero idea what Perl even looks like:
>
> # create target hash for tracks and cd numbers
> my %cddh; # cd tracks hash
> my %cddi; # cds by cd no
> foreach (@cdda) {
> my ($cd,$artist,$album,$file) = (split('/',$_))[4..7];
> my $hkey="$artist/$album/$file";
> $cddh{$hkey}="1";
> $cddi{$cd}++; # accum no tracks on the cd
> }
Now rewrite it as a one liner making maximum use of built in
variables and short variable names, it won't look like brainfuck but it
might look like TECO^Wline noise.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348930 is a reply to message #348927] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:53 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:52:47 -0400
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see no humor at all in making fun of Perl being cryptic.
>> Regular expressions can be cryptic.
>> Perl, no so much.
>
> Oh Perl can be very cryptic
I suppose.
> - it can also be wonderfully clear.
As I tried to demonstrate with my example.
I find it's under the covers usage of $_ a bit disturbing and I tend
to make explicit references to $_ or assign it to a variable and use
the variable.
But it doesn't deserve the reputation cryptic.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348933 is a reply to message #348928] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 15:58 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:42:22 -0400
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> GreyMaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-] >>.>---.+++++++..++
>>>> +.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
>>>>
>>> Or is that Perl :)
>>
>> Apparently, you have zero idea what Perl even looks like:
>>
>> # create target hash for tracks and cd numbers
>> my %cddh; # cd tracks hash
>> my %cddi; # cds by cd no
>> foreach (@cdda) {
>> my ($cd,$artist,$album,$file) = (split('/',$_))[4..7];
>> my $hkey="$artist/$album/$file";
>> $cddh{$hkey}="1";
>> $cddi{$cd}++; # accum no tracks on the cd
>> }
>
> Now rewrite it as a one liner making maximum use of built in
> variables and short variable names, it won't look like brainfuck but it
> might look like TECO^Wline noise.
No thanks.
Wouldn't know how to do that anyhow.
I did a search for obfuscated Perl and saw things written without
indentation and single letter variables. Hardly seems fair.
The language itself is pretty clear.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348938 is a reply to message #348933] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:09 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:58:08 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> Now rewrite it as a one liner making maximum use of built in
>> variables and short variable names, it won't look like brainfuck but it
>> might look like TECO^Wline noise.
>
> No thanks.
>
> Wouldn't know how to do that anyhow.
>
> I did a search for obfuscated Perl and saw things written without
> indentation and single letter variables. Hardly seems fair.
> The language itself is pretty clear.
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0 <J]dsJxp"|dc`
RSA in two lines of Perl (or so it is claimed), this is the kind of
thing that fuels the reputation for obscurity.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348940 is a reply to message #348920] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:48 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:27:47 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
> There was a time when TRAC was promoted by some, Ted Nelson talks about
> it in "Computer Lib" and I more recently saw a mention of it in an old
> CoEvolution Quarterly. But all I remember about it is that the owner
> made a big fuss about it being a trademarked name, so one had to include
> the trademark symbol. I can't see how it could go far with a start like
> that,
> and most people nowadays haven't heard of TRAC. But it seemed like an
> attempt at another language, except instead of being "open", it wasn't,
> so it never went far.
TRAC wasn't actually a programming language as such. It was a text
processing language, rather akin to a macro processor. I know this
because I studied this stuff a lot; one of the more successful macro
processors was ML/I, which I still maintain (and is still in use, 50
years on).
http://www.ml1.org.uk
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348942 is a reply to message #348920] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 16:50 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 1:26:54 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> But hasn't Smalltalk faded? I've not been paying attention, but it seems
> like there's been a move away from some older languages, for reasons that
> aren't so strong.
>
> So Python seems to have replaced BASIC. Scratch seems to be the new
> "kid's language", though it's derived from Smalltalk. I was going to say
> the same people did both, but Smalltalk came out of Xerox Parc, while
> Scratch is MIT.
>
> There are differences between some languages, C is different from
> BASICbut and so is FORTH, but others seem to have relatively small
> differences. So it's not clear if the "new" language that takes over is
> so much better, or if it's just something else that causes its rise.
Trends in information technology are not necessarily inspired by
logical or good reasons. (For one thing, people will disagree
passionately about the merits of a particular hardware, software,
or vendor.)
As mentioned, General Motors outpaced pioneer Ford Motor Company
with a series of brands that allowed upgrades, as well as the
annual model year, which was a marketing gimmick. Their planned
obsolescence and glitz helped sell a lot of cars. It was the
same with computers. In the 1960s, Alvin Townsend documented that
a lot of companies computerized pre-maturely with expensive and
disasterous results. In the modern era, many corporates dictated
a shift to client-server from the mainframe because it was the
thing to do, as opposed to a genuine cost-effective solution.
The same with computer languages. Heck, in the 1980s, there
were some who said COBOL was dead, and pushed 4GL's (Easytrieve,
etc.) as the replacement, until they found out how inefficient
they were.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348954 is a reply to message #348889] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 21:25 |
Richard Thiebaud
Messages: 222
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 07/21/2017 04:34 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2017-07-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:18:09 -0400
>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's
>>>> > 10th anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the
>>>> > following to C is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But
>>>> > seems there was no follow up to C yet.
>>>>
>>>> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>>> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to
>>>> also be C.
>>>>
>>>> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>>
>>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>>> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>>
>> Yep D came too late, C++ and Java were well established by the time
>> D surfaced and it never gained enough momentum to become mainstream which
>> is a pity because it seems more expressive and cleaner than either C++ or
>> Java (especially Java with all the conventions bolted on).
>>
>> I've liked the look of it for a long time, and never found a real
>> use for it - this also seems to be a common sentiment.
>
> D is nice, C++11 borrowed lot of things from D, but what hampers D is bad
> implementation. Java as lousy as it it has excellent implementation and
> same could be said for C++. There is ldc(llvm based) and gdc (gcc based)
> but they are never up to date with all features.
>
>>
>
>
How long did GCC or MCVC take to get up to date with C++2011?
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348955 is a reply to message #348850] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 22:53 |
Richard Thiebaud
Messages: 222
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 07/20/2017 04:22 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>
>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>> hands-on system admin.
>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>
>
> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
> come out.
>
>
Consider FreeBasic or QB64
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348962 is a reply to message #348927] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 03:29 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:52:47 -0400
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see no humor at all in making fun of Perl being cryptic.
>> Regular expressions can be cryptic.
>> Perl, no so much.
>
> Oh Perl can be very cryptic - it can also be wonderfully clear.
>
I should, in spite of my remark, vote as a Perl Supporter.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348977 is a reply to message #348920] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 10:02 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>>> > that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>>> > a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>>>
>>>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>>>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>>>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>>>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>>>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>>>> hands-on system admin.
>>>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>>>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>>>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>>>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
>>> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
>>> come out.
>>
>> The Chinese Children's Palaces were teaching their 5-8 year
>> old kids Smalltalk.
>>
> But hasn't Smalltalk faded? I've not been paying attention, but it seems
> like there's been a move away from some older languages, for reasons that
> aren't so strong.
>
> So Python seems to have replaced BASIC. Scratch seems to be the new
> "kid's language", though it's derived from Smalltalk. I was going to say
> the same people did both, but Smalltalk came out of Xerox Parc, while
> Scratch is MIT.
>
> There are differences between some languages, C is different from
> BASICbut and so is FORTH, but others seem to have relatively small
> differences. So it's not clear if the "new" language that takes over is
> so much better, or if it's just something else that causes its rise.
>
> There was a time when TRAC was promoted by some, Ted Nelson talks about it
> in "Computer Lib" and I more recently saw a mention of it in an old
> CoEvolution Quarterly. But all I remember about it is that the owner made
> a big fuss about it being a trademarked name, so one had to include the
> trademark symbol. I can't see how it could go far with a start like that,
> and most people nowadays haven't heard of TRAC. But it seemed like an
> attempt at another language, except instead of being "open", it wasn't, so
> it never went far.
>
> Other languages almost seem cooked up to avoid such things, an almost like
> something else language.
Computer languaages seem to follow similar fashion trends as clothes.
What amazed me is that these kids did not speak nor read English but could
program using an English-based computer language.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348978 is a reply to message #348912] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 10:02 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TrailingEdgeTechnologies wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:30:15 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:55:05 -0500, JimP. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:42:37 -0400, Michael Black <DELETED>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >I don't like HTML being called a "programming language". It's a markup
>>>> >lnaguage, it's not a program. One reason to move it elsewhere is that
in
>>>> >1996, when we briefly had a "Freenet" in Montreal, they made it sound
like
>>>> >a programming language that required some level of effort to pursue it.
I
>>>> >think that was a downfall, people saw "programming" and avoided it.
It's
>>>> >about layout. And I'm not sure something learned from HTML helps to move
>>>> >to a programming language.
>>>> >
>>>> >There is a definite need for people who can make webpages, but
programming
>>>> >is something else.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Most html tutorial sites I went to when it came out called it
>>>> mark up as well.
>>>
>>> I would say to call something a programming language it has either have
>>> to have loops, branches and (what was the third?), or all of that. HTML
>>> doesn't have any of it. Different for JavaScript then.
>>
>> A Jaquard card wasn't a program by that definition.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> But a set of Jaquard cards strung together operated as a programmed loop.
that's a long stretch of the term. :-)
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348979 is a reply to message #348903] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 10:02 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
GreyMaus wrote:
> On 2017-07-21, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-20, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20 Jul 2017 07:38:05 GMT
>>>> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>>> > that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>>> > a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any".
>>>>
>>>> How old, how smart? "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and
>>>> Ritchie is a brilliant little book for learning an actual programming
>>>> language. Sedgewick's "Algorithms" covers that area well. Kernighan
>>>> and Pike's "The Unix Programming Environment" provides context.
>>>> O'Reilly's "Running Linux" is as good a place to start as any for
>>>> hands-on system admin.
>>>> Those are of course all "classic" tomes that might be a bit dry and
>>>> dated (although I think they've aged well) - these days there's a
>>>> tendency to just sit the kid in front of a PC and point them at
>>>> something like https://scratch.mit.edu/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 12. All the above are far too advanced, what I would like is
>>> something she can type in a few lines, run, and see results
>>> come out.
>>
>> The Chinese Children's Palaces were teaching their 5-8 year
>> old kids Smalltalk.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Would that be part of their population control program... Bore them
> stiff? (Sorry, I knw nothing about smalltalk, except it influenced Ruby)
No. Children's Palaces were extra educational centers. Other rooms
had art, music, etc.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348980 is a reply to message #348938] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 10:24 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:58:08 -0400
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> Now rewrite it as a one liner making maximum use of built in
>>> variables and short variable names, it won't look like brainfuck but it
>>> might look like TECO^Wline noise.
>>
>> No thanks.
>>
>> Wouldn't know how to do that anyhow.
>>
>> I did a search for obfuscated Perl and saw things written without
>> indentation and single letter variables. Hardly seems fair.
>> The language itself is pretty clear.
>
> print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0 <J]dsJxp"|dc`
>
> RSA in two lines of Perl (or so it is claimed), this is the kind of
> thing that fuels the reputation for obscurity.
Taking those 2 lines and putting them in /tmp/x.pl, I get:
perl x.pl < x.pl
dc: stack empty
dc: stack empty
dc: register 'N' (0116) is empty
dc: stack empty
dc: register 'K' (0113) is empty
dc: register 'N' (0116) is empty
dc: stack empty
dc: stack empty
dc: register 'N' (0116) is empty
dc: stack empty
Looks to me like more than half of it is actually a shell command.
The pack "C*" part causes the next argument to be printed as Octal.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348983 is a reply to message #348980] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 10:49 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:24:51 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:58:08 -0400
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Now rewrite it as a one liner making maximum use of built in
>>>> variables and short variable names, it won't look like brainfuck but
>>>> it might look like TECO^Wline noise.
>>>
>>> No thanks.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't know how to do that anyhow.
>>>
>>> I did a search for obfuscated Perl and saw things written without
>>> indentation and single letter variables. Hardly seems fair.
>>> The language itself is pretty clear.
>>
>> print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;
>> [(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%
>> 0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
>>
>> RSA in two lines of Perl (or so it is claimed), this is the
>> kind of thing that fuels the reputation for obscurity.
>
> Taking those 2 lines and putting them in /tmp/x.pl, I get:
>
> perl x.pl < x.pl
> dc: stack empty
> dc: stack empty
> dc: register 'N' (0116) is empty
> dc: stack empty
> dc: register 'K' (0113) is empty
> dc: register 'N' (0116) is empty
> dc: stack empty
> dc: stack empty
> dc: register 'N' (0116) is empty
> dc: stack empty
>
> Looks to me like more than half of it is actually a shell command.
Yep that much is clear it generates commands for dc which does the
sums (dc supports arbitrary precision).
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348991 is a reply to message #348923] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 12:39 |
Jon Elson
Messages: 646
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> TCL, "tickle", has good library support and ISTR comes with a number
> of games.
I've written control GUIs for two pretty complex data acquisition chip
systems in Tcl/Tk. ARRGH, what a nightmare. I even put all the "back end"
and hardware interface stuff in C++, but the GUI section is Tcl/Tk. It DOES
solve a lot of stacking of sections of the window automatically, not always
the way you want them. The code ends up being vast and impenetrable, and
trying to find a specific line that is responsible for a specific widget can
take a long time.
Since then, I have hacked up a few smaller GUIs using Glade. The version of
Glade I had had some problems editing an exiting GUI, it seems it was
designed to construct the page in one go and never make major edits on it
again. I ended up editing the xml in a text editor after getting the basic
framework built. But, the routines that interface the GUI widgets to the
back-end are MUCH simpler to deal with, generally 5 lines of C (or C++) form
the wrapper for the active code. Simple widgets can manipulate variables
with no backing routine. So, I think Glade + C would be my choice for a
complex GUI in the future.
Jon
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348993 is a reply to message #348881] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 13:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <MPG.33db2e266413626898ae94@news.eternal-september.org>,
j.clarke.873638@gmail.com says...
>
> In article <slrnon10gg.rnl.mausg@smaus.xxx>, mausg@mail.com says...
>>
>> On 2017-07-20, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnon0juc.18s.mausg@smaus.xxx>, mausg@mail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-07-19, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> > I don't like HTML being called a "programming language". It's a markup
>>>> > lnaguage, it's not a program. One reason to move it elsewhere is that in
>>>> > 1996, when we briefly had a "Freenet" in Montreal, they made it sound like
>>>> > a programming language that required some level of effort to pursue it. I
>>>> > think that was a downfall, people saw "programming" and avoided it. It's
>>>> > about layout. And I'm not sure something learned from HTML helps to move
>>>> > to a programming language.
>>>> >
>>>> > There is a definite need for people who can make webpages, but programming
>>>> > is something else.
>>>> >
>>>> > Michael
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> A relative arrived a while ago, and asked me for a loan of a book
>>>> that her daughter could read to learn of programming. I pointed to
>>>> a line of books on the shelf, and said, "Take any". On thinking
>>>> of it later, I would say that it would be hard to beat the old BASICs
>>>> for that, that a child could type in, run, and see instant results.
>>>> Unfortunatly, I have no books on BASIC, is there even a BASIC available
>>>> for Windoze?. I like Ruby myself at the moment,.
>>>>
>>>> There is a hexagram availaable for the iChing, which is something like,
>>>> "Difficulty at the Beginning, the superior man strive to improve."
>>>
>>> BASIC is built into Microsoft Office. It is a highly extended
>>> implementation that can control Office and also attach to other software
>>> that provides COM interface.
>>>
>>> A somewhat different BASIC is also one of the languages supported in Visual
>>> Studio, which is free for personal and limited commercial use. Neither of
>>> these is interactive though.
>>>
>>> If you want a popular language today that you can type in and see instant
>>> results, look at Python.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Python may have problems with two things, the 2->3 divide (which
>> learners can solve by only dealing with 3), and the indentation issue,
>> which is convenient when one is used to it),,
>> Whole idea of command line convenient languages would be learners
>> trying to mentally connect these with the typical Windows click-n-run stuff.
>
> If the documentation was better and it wasn't so damned expensive,
> APL*PLUS/Win would be a decent option. Once you understand how its Windows
> interaction works it's kind of fun to type a command and have a window pop
> up, type another one and a control appears in that window, etc. While
> there are other APLs out there, none of the rest seem to be as well
> integrated into Windows.
Just a further note, I had forgotten that Visual Basic for Applications has
an immediate execution mode.
In Office 2016 (there are similar procedures for older versions) you open
an Office product (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc), go file/options/customize
ribbon and click "developer", then click the Developer tab that appears,
pick Visual Basic from the ribbon, and from the Visual Basic window,
View/Immediate Mode and then drag the Immediate window to a reasonable
size. Now you can type Basic statements in that window and they are
immediately executed. Note that there is no desk calculator mode, they
have to statements that would be valid if used in a program. "2+2" gives
an error, but "? 2+2" gives 4.
So there you go, interactive BASIC from Microsoft on Windows is not dead.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348994 is a reply to message #348954] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 13:47 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> writes:
> On 07/21/2017 04:34 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> On 2017-07-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:18:09 -0400
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>>> > Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's
>>>> >> 10th anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the
>>>> >> following to C is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But
>>>> >> seems there was no follow up to C yet.
>>>> >
>>>> > D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>>> > elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to
>>>> > also be C.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>>>> even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>>>> 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>>>
>>> Yep D came too late, C++ and Java were well established by the time
>>> D surfaced and it never gained enough momentum to become mainstream which
>>> is a pity because it seems more expressive and cleaner than either C++ or
>>> Java (especially Java with all the conventions bolted on).
>>>
>>> I've liked the look of it for a long time, and never found a real
>>> use for it - this also seems to be a common sentiment.
>>
>> D is nice, C++11 borrowed lot of things from D, but what hampers D is bad
>> implementation. Java as lousy as it it has excellent implementation and
>> same could be said for C++. There is ldc(llvm based) and gdc (gcc based)
>> but they are never up to date with all features.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
> How long did GCC or MCVC take to get up to date with C++2011?
generally, gnu is ahead of the others. MSVC is generally somewhat
behind.
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #348996 is a reply to message #348994] |
Sat, 22 July 2017 15:16 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:47:12 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> writes:
>> On 07/21/2017 04:34 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:18:09 -0400 Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400 Andreas Kohlbach
>>>> >> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around
>>>> >>> it's 10th anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the
>>>> >>> following to C is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g*
>>>> >>> But seems there was no follow up to C yet.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>>> >> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it
>>>> >> to also be C.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>>> >
>>>> > Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much
>>>> > as C even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet
>>>> > articles in 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth
>>>> > these days? ;-).
>>>>
>>>> Yep D came too late, C++ and Java were well established by the
time
>>>> D surfaced and it never gained enough momentum to become mainstream
>>>> which is a pity because it seems more expressive and cleaner than
>>>> either C++ or Java (especially Java with all the conventions bolted
>>>> on).
>>>>
>>>> I've liked the look of it for a long time, and never found a real
>>>> use for it - this also seems to be a common sentiment.
>>>
>>> D is nice, C++11 borrowed lot of things from D, but what hampers D is
>>> bad implementation. Java as lousy as it it has excellent
>>> implementation and same could be said for C++. There is ldc(llvm
>>> based) and gdc (gcc based) but they are never up to date with all
>>> features.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> How long did GCC or MCVC take to get up to date with C++2011?
>
> generally, gnu is ahead of the others. MSVC is generally somewhat
> behind.
How about Clang?
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: modern programming languages? [message #349064 is a reply to message #348906] |
Sun, 23 July 2017 13:30 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/21/2017 9:42 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
> GreyMaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2017-07-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>>> On 2017-07-20, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:40:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:46:59 -0400
>>>> >> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I guess C is still going strong. Reading a BYTE article around it's 10th
>>>> >>> anniversary (a crash curse from 1983) they ponder if the following to C
>>>> >>> is called D because it kind of derived from B. *g* But seems there was no
>>>> >>> follow up to C yet.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> D exists and is derived from C with OO implemented rather more
>>>> >> elegantly than in C++ by the simple expedient of not requiring it to also
>>>> >> be C.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://dlang.org/ for more details.
>>>> >
>>>> > Okay. But first time I hear about it. Seems to not be used as much as C
>>>> > even today (2017 that is for these reading vintage usenet articles in
>>>> > 2057. Btw. what is the average temperature on earth these days? ;-).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wot about Go?.. Fairly simple typed in things seem very fast.
>>>
>>> There is always BrainFuck <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck>
>>>
>>> Hello world:
>>>
>>> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-] >>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
>>>
>> Or is that Perl :)
>
> Apparently, you have zero idea what Perl even looks like:
>
> # create target hash for tracks and cd numbers
> my %cddh; # cd tracks hash
> my %cddi; # cds by cd no
> foreach (@cdda) {
> my ($cd,$artist,$album,$file) = (split('/',$_))[4..7];
> my $hkey="$artist/$album/$file";
> $cddh{$hkey}="1";
> $cddi{$cd}++; # accum no tracks on the cd
> }
>
How about Malbolge as a language???
Malbolge is a public domain esoteric programming language invented by
Ben Olmstead in 1998, named after the eighth circle of hell in Dante's
Inferno, the Malebolge.
Malbolge was specifically designed to be almost impossible to use, via a
counter-intuitive 'crazy operation', base-three arithmetic, and
self-altering code. It builds on the difficulty of earlier, challenging
esoteric languages (such as Brainfuck and Befunge), but takes this
aspect to the extreme, playing on the entangled histories of computer
science and encryption. Despite this design, it is possible (though very
difficult) to write useful Malbolge programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
