


Prothon - A New Prototype-based Language 630
Ben Collins writes "Prothon is a new industrial-strength, interpreted, prototype-based, object-oriented language that gets rid of classes altogether in the way that the Self language does. It uses the sensible, practical syntax and add-on C module scheme from Python. This major prototype improvement over Python plus many other general improvements make for a clean new revolutionary breakthrough in language development. Prothon is simple to use and yet offers the combined power of Python and Self. Check out the first public pre-alpha release at prothon.org."
Pre Alpha Release? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pre Alpha Release? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pre Alpha Release? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, hell freezing over and the end of all mankind would be newsworthy, wouldn't it?
Re:Pre Alpha Release? (Score:5, Funny)
this language doesn't just use prototypes... it is one.
Why is there only one database access language? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, there is one additional database access language I know of: NewSQL (http://newsql.sf.net).
But it seems nobody is really interested in database access. And everybody is interested in all kinds of general programming language. Why is that?
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might question the eveolution of how much we push into the platform level though. For instance the hot libraries/tools people are playing with are things like object serialization packages, cheap DB replication, etc. These are places where application space is trying to address lack of evolution in data storage space and might be good candidates for new storage interfaces.
Just a thought..
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any way there is no standards defined for stored procedures, triggers, OODBMS etc, and even if there were, which vendor whould implement them and risk losing business to another competing products.
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't say whether or not this has been explored extensively (enough) - I don't know if anyone can.
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:3, Informative)
Check David McGoveran, Chris(topher) J Date, Fabian Pascal, Hugh Darwen, and BTW Eduard F 'Ted' Codd. Start at DMoz [dmoz.org.], then Google around...
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:5, Interesting)
Arabic numbers are old too, but I don't see anyone proposing to change them.
SQL is an English-like representation of relational calculus. Relational calculus has not, and is not going to, change significantly. When the problem is solved well, there's no need to change the solution.
SQL is like COBOL????! WTF?? (Score:4, Troll)
different way to COBOL which is procedural. I think you need to go back and re-take compsci 101!
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are more than that. Here's one: Xplain [berenddeboer.net]. That page describes a converter to SQL, so you can write Xplain queries and make them against a standard DBMS. I don't know much about this language, as I just learned of it recently.
There are many others which are not based on the relational model. It's difficult for me to take them seriously, as the relational model is so powerful.
SQL is so old, it hurts. It's basically COBOL.
I don't care how old it is. What's wrong with it?
By "is basically COBOL", are you complaining that it favors words over symbols? I do not find this to be a problem. My SQL queries are short enough and a small enough part of the whole program that I prefer the clarity over any additional possible terseness. COBOL is different in that whole programs are written in it.
If I were to make any complaints about SQL, they would be:
values (value_a, value_b, value_c) ...which looks okay there, but gets hard when you have too many columns to fit on one line. Versus insert into table (column_a => value_a,
column_b => value_b,
column_c => value_c which is always clear.
select 'foo',
'bar',
column_c
... versus insert into table
select 'foo' as column_a,
'bar' as column_b,
column_c
...
$sth->execute($foo, $bar, $baz); versus $sth = $dbh->prepare('insert into mytable values (:foo,
$sth->execute(foo => $foo,
bar => $bar,
baz => $baz); I think the placeholder syntax is not actually specified by the SQL standard, but it should be. The '?' syntax is dumb. The named syntax should be mandatory. In most DBMS/API combinations, only the '?' syntax is available.
Re:Because SQL works (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Because SQL works (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, lets say you have an invoice system that maintains "customer"s, "bill"s, and "payment"s in seperate tables. The relationships are as follows: One customer to many bills and many payments. A seperate table "paytobill" (with an amount field) is used to link bills and payments as some customers may make a single payment covering several bills, or several payments to cover a single bill (like a payment plan).
Now, give me a report showing every customer, and the most recent bill that each customer owes money on (if they have any), and how much they owe. Using strictly these tables (ie no fields that are updated by a trigger) it is incredibly hairy. Your choices are pretty much to execute a query on "paytobill" inside a loop from "customer left outer join bill", or to do something really hairy like this (postgres syntax) (we'll assume that bill.id is ascending: Not pretty, is it? Now, look at how that could be done with less language and more readability by adding a single keyword and slightly redefining the syntax: Here, its clear that we're joining "bill" and "paytobill" and collapsing that table immediately to generate sum(p.amount). Then, we order this collapsed table on date, and left outer join against "customer", BUT we only take one row from the collapsed table for each customer (if it speeds the join, we could even ditch those unused rows now to further shrink the table). Drawbacks include the use of () to clarify what grouping and limit we mean. Even though the LIMITED keyword could mean that the next GROUP BY/LIMIT keyword belongs to the join, what if both were used, without a WHERE clause to indicate where the joins ended and the main query began?
The query planner would have to be able to identify the request for SUM(p.amount) as being related to the GROUPed limited join. The planner would then create the intermediary table and calculate the aggregate values on that table using the given group by. Then the query planner would order the intermediary table and join it with the customer table, selecting from zero to the limit number of right-hand rows for each left-hand-row The syntax above makes it fairly clear what the query planner should be doing.
The command in SQL would involve a nested loop [select max(...)...] (two, if the planner wasn't smart enough to recognize that the two copies of it are identical, which most won't be since they are in seperate branches of a left outer join) (it's possible that a brilliant query planner might be able to make the jump and create an intermediary table of <bill.customerid,MAX(bill.id)> for reference in both branches of the query). In addition, unless you have a brilliant query planner, you'll end up working with potentially very large intermediate tables.
Re:Because SQL works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because SQL works (Score:5, Insightful)
For another thing, your design is unsound from an accounting standpoint. A sound design requires that payments are explicitly applied to bills in our record keeping system whether it is electronic or paper. It's the old debits and credits thing. Your accounting records should not use some kind of magical algorithm to figure out which payment record goes which which bill and then use a separate maguic table to override that logic. Every change in an acount/bill/payment status should be explicitly spelled out in records in a transaction table. These records are either filled out at the explicit directions of a human or by created by an algorithm -- it doesn't matter. The change in the bill's balance needs to be be explicitly recorded.
Given this design, the payment table in your query is totally superfluous. Everything we need to know is in the paytobill table. What you are asking for is not that hard (for an expert):
select customer.custId,
bill.billId,
billAmt - coalesce(sum(payToBill.applyAmt),0)
from customer left outer join
bill on bill.custId = customer.custid left outer join
paytobill on paytobill.billId = bill.billId
where
bill.billdate =
(select max billdate from bill
where bill.custId = customer.custId)
group by customer.custId, bill.billId
Which is much less nasty than your SQL. Granted, SQL programmers don't always have the ability to work with sound schema designs; on the other hand, it's always possible to create designs that are hard to use.
I'm not saying SQL couldn't be improved. It also needs the ability to compare anonymous tuples with tuples returned by a subquery -- only allowing scalars with the "=" operator is a huge limitation to the working SQL programmer.
Also, the standard needs to be a lot more stringent, and there should be tough conformance tests. The Microsoft SQL Server, for example is a disgrace -- it doesn't allow alias references in expressions for one thing, and has truly horrible bugs in prepared query variable binding.
Re:Why is there only one database access language? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the strictest sense, he is correct. SQL is based on relational calculus, but manages to mangle it pretty badly.
Suffice to say that employing many relational concepts in SQL is not really possible, and SQL makes the remainder a lot more complicated than they need to be.
this thread [sitepoint.com] manages to cover the bases, I think...
Re:Pre Alpha Release? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what it sounds like to me.
Someone has an idea, makes a sourceforge page for it, gets some developers, writes up his ideas full of marketspeak. What happens to it? About 95% of the time, it dies a long, slow death.
That's pre-alpha, folks! I'll be happy to look at it when it reaches 1.0, but until then, I'm playing the odds.
I wasn't aware Python was broken.
Perl wasn't broken when Python was made, right? Adding another language never harms anyone, really. If it proves to be powerful, people will use it. If it proves to be clean and easy to understand, people will use it as a learning tool. If it doesn't offer anything better than any other language, it will die. Its just the evolution of coding languages.
Hell, if everyone followed the philosophy of "well, [programing language] isn't broken, why make another." We'd all be programming in assembly... or worse, bytecode.
Pity about the name (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pity about the name (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pity about the name (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks a lot dude. I'll never be able to use "prothon" without thinking of "hot porn" now.
You pretty much have managed to kill it right out of the box.
Re:Pity about the name (Score:5, Funny)
{puzzled} You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Re:Pity about the name (Score:4, Funny)
Python - Hot Nyp(ple), Not Hyp
COBOL - B Cool
FORTRAN - Rant Fro, Nor Fart
Lisp - Slip, Lips
Objective-C - Object Vice
BASIC - I Scab
And the most horrific of all....
C - C !!!!
Is their skin yellow? (Score:3, Funny)
How can they... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can they... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft gets away with this every time....
Re:How can they... (Score:3, Interesting)
Without having looked at the project pages, I'd guess that the features of the language (syntax, etc.) make it industrial-strength, but this particular first implementation of the language (compiler, libraries, etc.) is only at the pre-alpha stage.
Or even... (Score:3, Insightful)
YANISL: Just What We Needed (Score:3, Funny)
Oops, did I say that out loud?
Re:YANISL: Just What We Needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:YANISL: Just What We Needed (Score:4, Informative)
"Like Python, Prothon uses indentation
Oh joy.
THL.
Maybe they should write a new webserver (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Maybe they should write a new webserver (Score:5, Funny)
Here we go.... (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't really explain why their way is better. They just state it as though it was a matter of fact.
Make your vote count [linuxsurveys.com]
Re:Here we go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here we go.... (Score:3, Informative)
implementing classes, the OOP approach
The OOP approach isn't limited to the class based languages. Class based languages have traditionally been more popular. The only recent mainstream prototype based language I can think of is javascript.
Saying one is better than the other is only ever likely to generate an argument, they're just different.
Have a look here [mit.edu] for the classic paper on the prototype based approach.
Re:Here we go.... (Score:5, Insightful)
OOP enables you to easily swap out modules, or replace existing code. As long as you know the inputs and outputs of an object, it can be seemlessly removed for a newer version. This makes maintence much easier, and so long as public/private/protected conventions are followed, it can allow for some really smooth upgrades.
IMHO inheritance is an overrated feature of OOP, I primarily like it because it forces people to work in a black box model, which makes the whole problem of updates and bug fixes 100x easier for the person who has to deal with your otherwise crappy code.
Re:Here we go.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not over-generalise, eh? There are plenty of things that don't fit neatly into a purely OO form as commonly supported by major OO languages, and I'm not just talking about functional programming techniques. Not everything is an object (in the OO sense), simple as that.
Re:Here we go.... (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, that's what object orientation is. It is possible to write OO code in C. It's easier in a language like Objective-C, which provides syntactic constructs to help.
For a good explanation of OOP, read the beginning chapters of Stroustrup's `The C++ Programming Language'. He gives a good description of the difference between object oriented code (which can be written in almost any language) and code written in a la
Prototype-based Prothon ehh? (Score:4, Funny)
industrial strenght ???!!! (Score:4, Funny)
As for industrial strength of the langage, knowing some industry guys, some pre alpha system is certaintly not ready.
Tabs, no classes (Score:3)
I didn't see much in the way of code examples on the site. The "no classes" thing confused me and I would have loved to see some example Prothon code that accomplishes the kinds of things that I would have used a class for, in Python.
Re:Tabs, no classes (Score:3, Insightful)
However, having character case be syntactically significant is a major botch. Case sensitivity was Dennis Ritchie's biggest mistake, and every time someone perpetuates it - or, as in this case, makes it even more significant - it just entrenches the botch even more.
Case sensitivity is wrong because people don't naturally think th
Re:Tabs, no classes (Score:4, Interesting)
German:
"Mein Sohn soll Forscher werden." = "My son shall become a researcher."
"Mein Sohn soll forscher werden." = "My son shall become more snappy."
Re:Tabs, no classes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tabs, no classes (Score:3, Insightful)
Glad you added that qualifier. But the whole point of programming languages is to minimize the amount of context (read, "redundancy") needed to make the meaning clear.
Now you can go back to putting a polish on your Polish sausage
Re:It gives me a great idea though! (Score:3, Interesting)
You can easily get around it with "IMPLICIT NONE," though that might be a DEC extension. I worked so long on a VAX that I can't tell you what is a DEC extension anymore without looking it up.
p fixation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:p fixation? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:p fixation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget Pike, Postscript, Prolog, POP11, Prograph, Proteus, Pliant, PL/I, and (the one that started it all) Plankalkuel.
It's probably just the law of averages in action. There are only 26 (or so, depending on the human language) letters to start with, and many hundreds of programming languages out there. But I would be a little suspicious o
Re:p fixation? (Score:3, Funny)
Programmers are largely male, so it all started back in 1957 with
Programmable Extensible Neutral-platform Integration System
Ever since, it has been tradition--no an homage--to name languages with 'p' as the first character.
Shhhh... (Score:4, Funny)
Haven't seen so many buzzwords in one sentence for a long long time...
Re:Shhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
A proven 32-bit cutting-edge state-of-the-art industrial-strength Y2K-compliant zero-administration plug-and-play industry-standard Java-enabled internet-ready multimedia professional personal-computer Operating System that is even newer and faster yet compatible, with a user-friendly object-oriented 3D graphical user interface, amazing inter-application communication and plug-in capability, an enhanced filesystem, full integration into Enterprise networks, an exclusive way to deploy distributed components, seamless network sharing of printers and files.
A work of art, except that it doesn't have "XML" in it somewhere.
Re:Shhhh... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shhhh... (Score:3, Funny)
Bondage (Score:5, Interesting)
This is taken from the Prothon Description [prothon.org]
Like Python, Prothon uses indentation to control the block structure of the program instead of block/end or {}. However, Prothon only allows tabs for indentation. Any space in an indent will cause an error.
Classic bondage-and-discipline. Why oh why is this so ??
Re:Bondage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bondage (Score:4, Insightful)
<ducks>
Re:Bondage (Score:3, Informative)
Python doesn't try to enforce a particular style of whitespace, just a consistent one,
Re:Bondage (Score:4, Insightful)
Not completely true. Seeing _whitespace_ is impossible; seeing _indentation_, however, is extremely easy. In fact, it's enormously easier than seeing { and }; consider the fact that many C bugs are of the form ...where "do_that" appears to most people to be conditional, but is actually unconditionally executed.
-Billy
Karma Whoring (Score:3, Informative)
This document assumes a working knowledge of Python. Many features are described as differences to Python features. If you are new to Python, a good starting point can be found at www.python.org.
Comments
Standard Python comments using the # character work exactly the same in Prothon. Prothon also supports the C comment format of
# this line is a comment
x=5 # this is a trailing comment
if not rlst
Indentation is Tab-Only
Like Python, Prothon uses indentation to control the block structure of the program instead of block/end or {}. However, Prothon only allows tabs for indentation. Any space in an indent will cause an error. This allows each programmer to set the editor to show the tab width to whatever he pleases and the Python problems of mixed spaces and tabs cannot happen in Prothon. It also allows for minimum typing.
Line Continuation
A line can be continued by placing a backslash ( \ ) as the last character of a line as in Python. Also, any tab indent of more than one level deeper than the previous indent level will cause the line to be considered a continuation of the previous line, which is a new feature to Prothon. The automatic continuation of lines in comma separated lists found in Python is not allowed in Prothon because of parsing differences, but usually the auto-continuation from indents alleviates the need for this.
Note that you can put spaces after tabs when in an auto-continuation. This allows you to line up the continued line for appearance.
x = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + \
5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 # backslash continuation
s = "this is a normal line \
this is a continuation" # backslash works in quotes
y = long_function_name() +
another_function_name() # extra indent continuation
z = function_name(variable_name_1, # this is legal in Prothon because
variable_name_2) # of extra indents, not commas
Variable Names and Scope (No more "self variable")
The syntax for a variable name (label) is the same as Python except that one exclamation mark is allowed at the end and only at the end. This usage should be reserved for functions that modify the object's content in place. This allows a function such as list.sort!() to return the modified list, which was not allowed in Python. One should ALWAYS use this naming convention for in-place modification functions to warn programmers.
Prothon has a very different concept of self than Python. Any and every object can be "self", whether the code is in a function or not. So the Python tradition of using the variable named "self" does not fit in Prothon. The next section shows how an object becomes the "self". For now just imagine that somehow there is always one special "self" object at any one time.
Prothon code needs a way to differentiate between local variables, attributes in the self our code is running on, and global variables (in Prothon, globals are attributes of the module running our code). Prothon is introducing a relatively new concept in order to make it very easy to know which of these three types of variable you are referring to. This is the use of character case. Just as Python pioneered the use of white-space (indentation) to control syntax, Prothon is using case to control syntax.
Local variables always start with a lower-case letter or underbar ( _ ). Global variables always start with an upper-case letter. Attributes in the self object are prefixed by a period ( . ), but the name of the attribute itself can start with any case.
def
text of website Prothon (Score:3, Informative)
Python is a interpreted language with object-oriented features that is practical, powerful, and fun to program at the same time. Over time capabilities have been added to the core Python language, while compatibility with earlier versions has been maintained, and Python has became loaded with features, some quite complex. The metaclass is an example of a recent feature addition. Even Python experts admit that metaclasses are brain-achingly complex.
Prothon is a fresh new language that gets rid of classes altogether in the same way that Self does and regains the original practical and fun sensibility of Python. This major improvement plus many minor ones make for a clean new revolutionary break in language development. Prothon is quite simple and yet offers the power of Python and Self.
Prothon is also an industrial-strength alternative to Python and Self. Prothon uses native threads and a 64-bit architecture to maximize performance in applications such as multiple-cpu hosting.
What is Prothon like?
See a quick description of the Prothon language.
Take a look under the hood at how Prothon is implemented.
Summary of differences from Python.
Development status?
As of 3/04 Prothon exists as a pre-alpha interpreter with minimum capabilites, just enough to try out the language.
Summary of currently implemented functions. Known problems.
Tested platforms: i386-linux, , sparc-linux, sparc64-linux, i386-Win2K, i386-XP, Dual-Opteron-Win2K
Target Schedule:
7/04: Freeze core language specs (keywords, etc.)
10/04: Release version 0.1
Download
Stable (build 115) Source tarball (175 KB)
Stable (build 115) Windows executable zip file (400 KB)
Latest (probably broken) SVN access: svn://svn.prothon.org/prothon/trunk
Latest source view and tarball: http://www.prothon.org/viewcvs/trunk
How can I contribute?
(Mailing list)
For now, the biggest contribution you can make would be adding to the discussion of 0.1 features. Please join the mailing list. Of course helping with the coding effort is always welcome.
Credits
Language design & win32 coding: Mark Hahn
Linux/Unix coding: Ben Collins
.NET? (Score:3, Funny)
Me, I can't wait for Intercal.NET and Brainfuck.NET
Re:.NET? (Score:4, Funny)
even better (Score:5, Interesting)
Like school in the summer time (Score:5, Informative)
Emp_proto = Object()
with Emp_proto:
def
return
def
print "My name is:",
Emp_proto.hello()
emp = Emp_proto("Jim")
emp.hello()
I see - "this/self" is replaced with "." (Score:3, Funny)
When things come together, they combine ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line, someone wanted Python with prototypes. I'm not sure that prototyping -- creating objects from other existing objects by copying, essentially making inheritance a "first class" consideration -- is an analogy that's going to truly redefine the way I look at programming. Or let me put it this way, I'm not at all sure that the benefits of prototyping are going to make me want to restructure -- yet again -- everything I know about programming so far. I mean, after a certain point, programming is a job and I have to produce, not just theorize all the time about new approaches.
Also, judging from Sun's tutorial [sun.com] on Self, it doesn't seem ready for primetime, so I'd be a little edgy about "Prothon".
Prothon. God.
I dunno. This may seem curmudgeonly, but it is, after all, yet ANOTHER language ... Sigh.
Not 'instrustrial strength' (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unlike python, there is no 'global' keyword. Any variable name starting with a capital letter is global."
(Taken from memory... the prothon site is a bit slow at the moment, for some odd reason
That is NOT the sign of an 'industrial strength' language.
Re:Not 'instrustrial strength' (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't see the problem. Virtually all languages have some sort of global namespace -- the class and package hierarchy in Java, imported functions or global variables in C, etc. Most programmers seem to adopt nomenclature to identify the scope of a variable. I see a lot of _underbar for member variables, ALL_CAPS for constants, UpperCaseNames for classes in Java and C++, etc.
What this does is (1) enforce such a standard, and (2) make it instantly apparent what the scope of an identifier is.
Contrast with Java (which is industrial strength -- I'm currently on break from writing transaction processing systems in it). Class names are global in Java within the scope of your package imports. Sun recommends you CapitalizeYourClasses and doNotCapitalizeLocalsOrMethods. However, that doesn't keep the occasional VB/C# programmer from falling into your lap and doing everything wrong, which can make the code awfully hard to read.
I'm not generally a fan of bondage-domination languages, but this is a case where I make an exception. (I'm also a fan of the scoping characters used in Ruby, for example.)
Re:Not 'instrustrial strength' (Score:5, Insightful)
It's never cool to brag about an unwillingness to learn something new. No matter what other good things you might have heard about Python, you refuse to even try to get past the formatting? That's really sad.
Question to mods: what part of that comment justified "informative"?
Self, Python, and Java (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I prefer a bit more bondage-and-discipline in my languages. That's because I like having the compiler tell me what I'm doing wrong as much as possible. It's a side effect of the environments in which I tend to work, with multiple people working on the same code. Strong typing is an important contract in such an environment. But it has a lot of downsides, as every perl and python programmer knows.
Oh, and dude, if you're going to submit your own damn web site to Slashdot, try getting a sturdier web server first.
So, then.... (Score:3, Funny)
Come to think of it, what does *anything* do that Lisp doesn't, except have larger market penetration?
Industrial strength trial size (Score:4, Insightful)
(Yes, I know others have said things similar to this, I just think this is more clear; I read all the comments before the site came up and this juxtaposition still struck me.)
If it's nae Lisp, it's Crrrrrrap (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it dynamic (can I define functions at runtime)? Is it compiled? Can I easily write code that manipulates code? Are functions first class objects? Can I extend the language seamlessly?
Some new languages are interesting, but most are built by people who have used and understood far too few of the current ones.
Ahhhh, Lisp -- and its true believers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Derogatory or condescending salutation. Quasi-religious statement of love for Lisp.
Laundry list of several nifty Lisp features. (It doesn't really matter which ones.)
Implication or outright statement that every feature in programming language in question has already been implemented in Lisp. Subsequent dismissal of language in question.
Remember, in writing your post, it is essential that you adhere to the following guidelines:
(Disclaimer: I like Lisp. Actually, I love Lisp. It really, truly is incredibly awesome. It's just Lisp users that drive me crazy.)
<ducks REALLY low>
Re:If it's nae Lisp, it's Crrrrrrap (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the quote is:
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
- H. Abelson and G. Sussman (in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)
For those not familiar with "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" it is one of the most famous introductory texts to computer science. All the code examp
Syntax (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re:Syntax (Score:4, Insightful)
Any language that uses whitespace or backslashes for line continuation is madness. This 2004 people. Write a damn compiler that can do the thinking, don't make me screw around with formatting to get my program working. Moronic. Stupid.
This is as logical as saying: "Any language that uses curly braces for block delimiters or semicolons for statement delimiters is madness. This is 2004 people. Write a damn compiler that can do the thinking. Don't make me screw around with punctuation to get my program working.
The whitespace and backslashes are not in addition to something else that unambiguously describes the structure. They are instead of the stuff that other languages use (curly braces and semicolons).
There is also Slate. (Score:3, Interesting)
From Slate [tunes.org] website:
Slate is a prototype-based object-oriented programming language based on Self, CLOS, and Smalltalk. Slate syntax is intended to be as familiar as possible to a Smalltalker...
It also features optional type declaration. The compiler is currently based on Common Lisp.
Here is a tip for the creators of this language. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us who are unfamiliar with these {dynamic | scripting | kiddie | hack| toy} languages but curious about the classless way of working are not really helped by this document.
If you go to Suns Java site, they don't say "If you are not familiar with C++/Smalltalk, you might as well fuck off."
Similarly Microsofts site for C# doesn't say "Go learn Java, and then find out about GOTO, and you might have a prayer of understanding this."
A good intro with no dependencies will help build momentum for your project.
Re:Here is a tip for the creators of this language (Score:3, Insightful)
2 points for ignorance!
The good and the bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad part is from a language design point of view it's a hodge-podge of small yet significant changes from Python, almost none of them, IMHO, an improvement over Python. Those that may be considered a slight improvement are hardly worth breaking compatibility for.
Significant case? Another type of comment? for i in 7 ? a differnt keyword to define generators? Return self by default? removal of class statements for javascript-like object orientation? WTF?
The Python implementation could definitely use an overhaul. The language itself has a few minor warts but strikes a fantastically well-balanced sweet spot that will be difficult to beat. I just can't see the real justification for these changes other than "because I can".
Tabs (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that it makes the code smaller, but at the risk of code sharing problems.
A plea to all up-and-coming language designers (Score:5, Informative)
Don't learn about it from your officemate, or your college instructor, especially if they say they haven't used it in over ten years. You wouldn't believe the opinions of someone who learned C from K&R [thefreedictionary.com] without upgrading their knowledge, would you?
Instead, start from places like the ALU web site [lisp.org] or Cliki [cliki.net] or Paul Graham's Lisp FAQ [paulgraham.com].
If you do this right, you will learn that computer languages:
are not inherently fast or slow - implementations are fast or slow, not languages
can be both dynamic and have good performance
can be cross-platform without swallowing POSIX whole
can have multiple inheritance without damaging your brain
can be object-oriented without being object-obsessed
If you like, you can quit as soon as you understand how static scoping and closures work - at least that way you will avoid the primary mistake in pretty much every recent scripting language.
There is a small risk you will become a SmugLispWeenie [c2.com] by doing this, so be forwarned.
need IDE more (Score:4, Insightful)
There's another name for Prothon: Python (Score:5, Informative)
But actually, prototype programming is even simpler:
new = old.__class__(init, args, here)
Just what 'old' is is determined at runtime. And if you like, you can poke around at 'obj.__bases__' to futz with inheritence.
Not having read my _Charming Python_ articles isn't really a sufficient reason to create a new programming language.
Nothing to see here.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It makes overly heavy use of punctuation. I'm of the opinion that languages need to be more human-readable, not less. Put another way, the speed and power of coding in any language is not gated by the number of characters it takes to type out a statement; it's gated by the time it takes to find and detect bugs and flaws. Words > punctuation for readability.
2. Many of the design decisions are obviously influenced by one person's peeves with existing languages. The world already has one Larry Wall, and as wonderful as he is, we don't really more Larrys.
3. Elegance is a hard thing to measure, much less quantify. Still, aside from simply being a unique language, it doesn't really offer any new elegance to the concept of what a language should do.
It's an impressive hack, to be sure. I'd be proud to be able to show off a body of code like this, for its demonstration of sheer technical strength. But I find its artistic merits somewhat lacking for my own tastes.
marketing/spin contradiction (Score:4, Funny)
This might be the first time I've seen a product described simultaneously as "industrial strength" and "pre-alpha".
check out Lua: prototype-based, mature, popular (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:YAL (INTL)... (Score:3, Insightful)
See also: jack of all trades, master of none.
Tom
Re:YAL (INTL)... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've probably left a few out, and that's not even mentioning languages I learned incidental to a class assignment (GPSS, Simscript II and Simula for a course on discrete event digital simulation, SNOBOL for something on text processing, Lisp).
The point is not to brag, but to point out that any professional software developer should be both expected to know several languages and should expect to learn and use several more over the course of his career. (But if you're going to mention it on a resume, give some indication of skill level -- expert, experienced or just "I wrote a 'hello world' in it once"?)
A mechanic is expected to have a pretty complete toolkit, with both metric and imperial wrenches, slot and Phillips and Torx screwdrivers, etc. -- and in Canada, Robertson screwdrivers too. (OTOH, he probably doesn't need a left-handed blivet impeller unless he's just into collecting tools for their own sake.) Somebody designing a product to be built -- whether a machine or a software system -- needs to be aware of what tools and materials are available to build the product with, and to maintain it. (In this regard progamming languages are more like materials than tools, either way they should be chosen for their properties.)
Re:YAL (INNTL)... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, only a small number of languages become popular in the end. But that doesn't mean the unpopular ones don't have academic value.
Cheers.
Re:Just what I need: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:doesn't compile... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3)
Is that in itselve a good reason not to care about new stuff at the horizon? 'Guess not, but Without a backing of a huge corporation or a huge number of people, no new language would be used. OK. So which companies initially backed Perl, C++, PHP? None. And there were never a huge number of people waiting to volunteer on building a huge code base for these things (and not for others).
They became pop
Re:Object oriented, now prototypes (Score:3, Funny)
I categorically REFUSE to use a language that looks like somebody bared up a dinner sized portion of type declarations all over the screen. (C)
I categorically REFUSE to use a language that looks like somebody bared up a dinner sized portion of weird operators. (Perl)