Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

**Christopher Benson-Manica** · Jul 17 '05, 10:41 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

In comp.lang.c Dave Allison <david.allison@ comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)[/color]

Nothing inherently wrong with it, except that few on the groups you've
posted this to will care. Try being topical next time.
[color=blue]
> If you find yourself in need of a programming language that is easy to use
> and readable, please have a look at it.[/color]

When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

**Larry Hazel** · Jul 17 '05, 10:41 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
>[/color]

C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.

**Victor Bazarov** · Jul 17 '05, 10:41 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

"Larry Hazel" <lhhazel@otelco .net> wrote...[color=blue]
> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >
> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
> > directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
> >[/color]
>
> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.[/color]

C to a C[++] programmer is no more difficult than Chinese to
an educated Chinese person. I, on the other hand have no
idea how to read Chinese. But I don't exclaim "you've got
to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
to read.

**Richard Heathfield** · Jul 17 '05, 10:41 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Larry Hazel wrote:
[color=blue]
> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
>> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
>>[/color]
>
> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.[/color]

Compared to the other languages in this crosspost? Damn right it's easy to
read! :-)

I mean yes, okay, I know what you mean. Any sufficiently advanced IOCCC
entry is indistinguishab le from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
IOCCC entries!

--
Richard Heathfield : [email protected] ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

**Unforgiven** · Jul 17 '05, 10:41 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Dave Allison wrote:[color=blue]
> It's called Aikido[/color]

As an aikidoka, I object to that.

I wonder if the Aikikai Hombu Dojo (or someone else) owns the rights to the
name aikido? Probably not, though, considering all the different styles out
there.

--
Unforgiven

**Les Cargill** · Jul 17 '05, 10:41 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Larry Hazel wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >
> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
> > directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
> >[/color]
>
> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.[/color]

'C' is a right-regular language, with good orthogonality of
operators. That literally means "easy to read" - or at least
having the capacity to be writrten in a fashion that is easy
to read.

If you've ever seen any deep Perl code, you'd understand :)

--
Les Cargill

**Jack Klein** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, david.allison@c omcast.net (Dave Allison)
wrote in comp.lang.c:
[color=blue]
> Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)[/color]

Oh no, not another "cross posted to four groups and off-topic in all
of them" posting :-(

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++

404 Not Found

http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

**Preben Randhol** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.ada.]
On 2004-02-06, Les Cargill <lcargill@world net.att.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> 'C' is a right-regular language, with good orthogonality of
> operators. That literally means "easy to read" - or at least
> having the capacity to be writrten in a fashion that is easy
> to read.[/color]

This is simply not true. How come there are so many buffer overflow
security problems then? However, let us not start a language war again
(as usually happens each time somebody crosspost between several
language newsgroups).
[color=blue]
> If you've ever seen any deep Perl code, you'd understand :)[/color]

And if you had seen Ada95 code you would understand that C[++] isn't
readable. Especially with huge projects.

--
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
language."

**Joona I Palaste** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Richard Heathfield <dontmail@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:[color=blue]
> Larry Hazel wrote:[color=green]
>> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
>>> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.[/color]
>>
>> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Compared to the other languages in this crosspost? Damn right it's easy to
> read! :-)[/color]
[color=blue]
> I mean yes, okay, I know what you mean. Any sufficiently advanced IOCCC
> entry is indistinguishab le from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
> IOCCC entries![/color]

I find C harder to read than Java, and easier to read than C++. I
don't know about Ada, as I've never seen it. But C and C++ are a
breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp. They look like
C looked while I was still a BASIC programmer: a random jumble of
punctuation marks.

--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected] sinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Nothing lasts forever - so why not destroy it now?"
- Quake

**Frank J. Lhota** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

"Joona I Palaste" <[email protected] sinki.fi> wrote in message
news:bvvjqj$4fb $1@oravannahka. helsinki.fi...[color=blue]
> ... But C and C++ are a
> breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.[/color]

I find Perl particularly obtuse. Perl reminds me of those comics where
obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.
Frankly, I don't understand how Perl has caught on when there are more
powerful, and more readable, string processing languages available.

**Martijn Lievaart** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:49:40 +0000, Frank J. Lhota wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Joona I Palaste" <[email protected] sinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:bvvjqj$4fb $1@oravannahka. helsinki.fi...[color=green]
>> ... But C and C++ are a
>> breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.[/color]
>
> I find Perl particularly obtuse. Perl reminds me of those comics where
> obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.
> Frankly, I don't understand how Perl has caught on when there are more
> powerful, and more readable, string processing languages available.[/color]

I find C particularly obtuse. C reminds me of those comics where
obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.
Frankly, I don't understand how C has caught on when there are more
powerful, and more readable, processing languages available.

Not trying to be funny, but your description made me immediately think of
my first introduction to C, and now I'm (trying to be) a Perl hacker. I
guess what is readable is very much in the eye of the beholder.

M4

**Georg Bauhaus** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.Abazarov@com acast.net> wrote:
: "Larry Hazel" <lhhazel@otelco .net> wrote...
:> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
:>
:> >
:> >
:> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
:> > directly to C.
:> >
:>
:> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.
:
: I, on the other hand have no
: idea how to read Chinese. But I don't exclaim "you've got
: to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
: to read.

Possible... "readable", then "easy to read", then "possible
to read". Some of Chinese ideographic content is easy to remember if
you learn to distinguish the pictures. Doesn't mean that Chinese
writing is easy to understand, e.g. because of context dependence.
Now what does "read" mean?

Georg

**Victor Bazarov** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

"Georg Bauhaus" <[email protected]> wrote...[color=blue]
> In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.Abazarov@com acast.net> wrote:
> : "Larry Hazel" <lhhazel@otelco .net> wrote...
> :> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> :>
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
> :> > directly to C.
> :> >
> :>
> :> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.
> :
> : I, on the other hand have no
> : idea how to read Chinese. But I don't exclaim "you've got
> : to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
> : to read.
>
> Possible... "readable", then "easy to read", then "possible
> to read". Some of Chinese ideographic content is easy to remember if
> you learn to distinguish the pictures. Doesn't mean that Chinese
> writing is easy to understand, e.g. because of context dependence.
> Now what does "read" mean?[/color]

What are you arguing about? For somebody who never saw Latin alphabet,
and only read Chinese all his life, what's easier to read? It has been
already mentioned, readability, or, if you so desire, easiness to read,
is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing else to talk about.

**Georg Bauhaus** · Jul 17 '05, 10:42 PM

Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.Abazarov@com acast.net> wrote:
:> Now what does "read" mean?
:
: What are you arguing about? For somebody who never saw Latin alphabet,
: and only read Chinese all his life, what's easier to read?

This is one of the questions implied by "Now what does 'read' mean?".
What's your answer?

(For example, I'm told that Chinese readers have an unusually
high reading speed, measured in time needed to absorb an article
containing a certain amount of "stuff" or "content".
I have not had difficulties reading Cobol fragments although
I know very little about Cobol.
I have had difficulties understanding the same ideas expressed
in other languages that I knew equally well.
How well can you express VHLevel programming constructs in
language X as compared to in language Y?)

: It has been
: already mentioned, readability, or, if you so desire, easiness to read,
: is in the eye of the beholder.

Mentioned... Well, claimed. How about referring to some results
in readability research (it exists)? How much does readability affect
the outcome of programming endeavour? Over time?

: There is nothing else to talk about.

Uhm, yes. Could you?

Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment