473,324 Members | 2,124 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,324 software developers and data experts.

Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)

For about 5 years now, I have been developing a scripting/prototyping language
that is now available on the net. It's called Aikido and was born in Sun Labs, but
has been released as open source. I no longer work for Sun, but am continuing
to use and develop it.

The language has a syntax similar to C++ and Java but is aimed at adhoc and
prototyping tasks. Unlike other scripting language, the idea of Aikido is to make
it easy for the programmer who is familiar with the C/C++/Java syntax
to pick it up and get started immediately.

The language is interpreted and has some interesting features:

* Dynamically typed, with large number of builtin types (string, vector, map, etc)
* Lexically scoped, a la Pascal, Ada, etc.
* Object oriented, single inheritance with packages, classes and interfaces
* Multithreaded, with Java and Ada style monitors
* Builtin stream operations
* Operator overloading
* enumerated types
* powerful string manipulation with regular expressions
* ability to call out to C functions with no additional interface code
* partial Java object model

It runs on Solaris, Linux and Mac OS X and is available from www.sun.com/coolstuff.
I will put it on Source Forge or Bitkeeper when I have a chance.

If you find yourself in need of a programming language that is easy to use
and readable, please have a look at it.

Cheers,

Dave
Jul 22 '05 #1
37 1562
In comp.lang.c Dave Allison <da***********@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)
Nothing inherently wrong with it, except that few on the groups you've
posted this to will care. Try being topical next time.
If you find yourself in need of a programming language that is easy to use
and readable, please have a look at it.


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)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jul 22 '05 #2
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:


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


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

Jul 22 '05 #3
"Larry Hazel" <lh*****@otelco.net> wrote...
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:


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


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


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.
Jul 22 '05 #4
Larry Hazel wrote:
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:


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


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


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 indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
IOCCC entries!
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.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
Jul 22 '05 #5
Dave Allison wrote:
It's called Aikido


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

Jul 22 '05 #6
Larry Hazel wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:


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


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


'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
Jul 22 '05 #7
On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, da***********@comcast.net (Dave Allison)
wrote in comp.lang.c:
Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)


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.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Jul 22 '05 #8
Jack Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, da***********@comcast.net (Dave Allison)
wrote in comp.lang.c:

Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)

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


Yeah, yeah. That's what I get for not posting anything for ten
years I suppose. How one forgets...

I would disagree that it's off-topic though, since it's a language
that is derived from the others. Where should I have posted
it?

Apologies for the faux-pas folks.

Jul 22 '05 #9
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:29:59 -0800, David Allison
<da***********@comcast.net> wrote in comp.lang.c++:
Jack Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, da***********@comcast.net (Dave Allison)
wrote in comp.lang.c:

Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)

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


Yeah, yeah. That's what I get for not posting anything for ten
years I suppose. How one forgets...

I would disagree that it's off-topic though, since it's a language
that is derived from the others. Where should I have posted
it?

Apologies for the faux-pas folks.


news:comp.programming would be one place to start.

--
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.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Jul 22 '05 #10
"David Allison" <da***********@comcast.net> wrote...
Jack Klein wrote:
On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, da***********@comcast.net (Dave Allison)
wrote in comp.lang.c:

Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)

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


Yeah, yeah. That's what I get for not posting anything for ten
years I suppose. How one forgets...

I would disagree that it's off-topic though, since it's a language
that is derived from the others. Where should I have posted
it?


You could have posted a request to create a special newsgroup "just
for your new cool interpreted language". All others seem to have at
least one, right? I believe your language deserves it. Besides,
having a newsgroup adds weight to the results of your labour.

Or you could have posted to comp.programming or [heavens forbid] to
one of them newsgroups with "announce" in the name. Nah!

You see, posting your message about a new language in an existing
language newsgroup sounds more like "Look here, folks, stop wasting
your time on this old <insert_existing_language_name_here>, and turn
to my new and improved one! It's so much better 'cause I tool the
best from all of your old and now obsolete languages..." Of course,
I exaggerate. To deliver the point.

Ah, beating a dead horse here, time for me to go do something useful
for a change. Sorry for the noise...
Jul 22 '05 #11
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.ada.]
On 2004-02-06, Les Cargill <lc******@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

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


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."
Jul 22 '05 #12
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
Larry Hazel wrote:
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.

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 indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
IOCCC entries!


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 (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Nothing lasts forever - so why not destroy it now?"
- Quake
Jul 22 '05 #13
"Joona I Palaste" <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
... But C and C++ are a
breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.


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.
Jul 22 '05 #14
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:49:40 +0000, Frank J. Lhota wrote:
"Joona I Palaste" <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
... But C and C++ are a
breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.


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.


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
Jul 22 '05 #15
In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.********@comacast.net> wrote:
: "Larry Hazel" <lh*****@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
Jul 22 '05 #16
"Georg Bauhaus" <sb*****@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote...
In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.********@comacast.net> wrote:
: "Larry Hazel" <lh*****@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?


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.
Jul 22 '05 #17
In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.********@comacast.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?
Jul 22 '05 #18
"Georg Bauhaus" <sb*****@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote...
In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <v.********@comacast.net> wrote:
[...]


I have no particular interest to continue this OT discussion here,
sorry.
Jul 22 '05 #19
In <8Q*******************@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> "Frank J. Lhota" <NO******************@verizon.net> writes:
"Joona I Palaste" <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
... But C and C++ are a
breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.
I find Perl particularly obtuse. Perl reminds me of those comics where
obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.


It is perfectly possible to write Perl code that is as readable as
well written C code. And it is perfectly possible to write C code that
is as unreadable as badly written Perl code.

It's not the tool, it's the way it's used. Unfortunately, many Perl
tutorials encourage conciseness at the expense of readability. I started
to like Perl only when I realised that I don't have to follow the
tutorial's examples in my own coding.
Frankly, I don't understand how Perl has caught on when there are more
powerful, and more readable, string processing languages available.


Probably because Perl is a lot more than a string processing language and
has an excellent interface to the OS primitives. The C-derived syntax
makes it easy to learn to the C programmer, which is another big point,
exploited by many other languages which wanted to benefit from C's
popularity.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Jul 22 '05 #20
"Martijn Lievaart" <m@remove.this.part.rtij.nl> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@remove.this.pa rt.rtij.nl...
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.


You may be trying to be funny, but many would agree with this assessment!
Jul 22 '05 #21
Frank J. Lhota wrote:
"Martijn Lievaart" <m@remove.this.part.rtij.nl> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@remove.this.pa rt.rtij.nl...
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.

You may be trying to be funny, but many would agree with this assessment!

The first line you clipped specifically says "Not trying to be funny."

Jul 22 '05 #22
"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:c0**********@sunnews.cern.ch...
It is perfectly possible to write Perl code that is as readable as
well written C code. And it is perfectly possible to write C code that
is as unreadable as badly written Perl code.

It's not the tool, it's the way it's used. Unfortunately, many Perl
tutorials encourage conciseness at the expense of readability. I started
to like Perl only when I realised that I don't have to follow the
tutorial's examples in my own coding.


Good point. Even APL can be written in a readable fashion. (After all, APL
started as a documentation language!) A lot of the readability problems are
due more to the culture around programming languages, rather than the
limitations of the languages itself. One wonders how much obfuscated C might
have been avoided if introductory C texts did not present the following as
an acceptable way to copy a null-terminated string:

while( *s++ = *t++ )
;
Jul 22 '05 #23
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:02:31 -0500, Jeff Schwab wrote:
You may be trying to be funny, but many would agree with this assessment!


The first line you clipped specifically says "Not trying to be funny."


Obviously there was a certain amount of tongue in cheek, but the point is
real enough.

I find that different languages fit different needs. The choice of
language is often dictated by how much experience one/the team has with
languages. I would never choose ada, simply because I don't know it at all.

Language comparisons can be valid, but there are surprisingly few people
who can say anything solid about that. It quickly degenerates in, well not
necessarely a flame war, but some religion is there always.

That said, seeing an interesting cross of groups, let me make a bold
statement to see if I can sparkle some real discussion, at the risk of
starting another hijad: C++ is an accademic experiment which has thought
us much about computer languages and has grealy influenced how we think
about programming languages today. Unfortunately the experiment has
failed, because the language it produced is so full of subteleties one has
to be an expert to use it effectively. On the other hand, its one of the
best languages around because its multi-paradigm basics make it often a
very good solution for the problem at hand. In particular its support for
generic programming has advanced the state of programming significantly.

To clarify that last remark, there may be languages that do generics
better (I don't know them, but they are bound to exist), but those are not
mainstream.

M4
Jul 22 '05 #24
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
In comp.lang.c Dave Allison <da***********@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-)


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


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


C is the most difficult Language to read and use. And yes, I have 10 years+
experience in C and C++ so I know what I am talking about. After a few
years of C and C++ it became clear to me that all those great K&R invetions
(array = pointer, type convertions left right and center - to name only
two) are crap.

In C and C++ I spend 10 times as much time inside a debugger as for example
in Ada. And I have only 1 year experience in Ada which shows something
about the quality of C or C++.

As for the OP: Scripting in a C style language: No thank you.

With Regards

Martin.

--
mailto://kr******@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Jul 22 '05 #25
Les Cargill wrote:
Larry Hazel wrote:

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


'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.


I have not yet seen a C programmer who does actualy does that.
If you've ever seen any deep Perl code, you'd understand :)


If you have ever seen Ada you know what we mean. C on the "easy to read" as
far away from Ada as Peal is from C.

With Regards

Martin

--
mailto://kr******@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Jul 22 '05 #26
"Martin Krischik" <kr******@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:91****************@linux1.krischik.com...
Les Cargill wrote:
'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.


I have not yet seen a C programmer who does actualy does that.


You have not been to comp.lang.c yet. Stand by and watch.
Jul 22 '05 #27
Martijn Lievaart wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:02:31 -0500, Jeff Schwab wrote: I find that different languages fit different needs. The choice of
language is often dictated by how much experience one/the team has with
languages. I would never choose ada, simply because I don't know it at
all.
Try to learn it. After 10 years of C and C++ I wanted someting new. I
learned Ada and hey wow I wish I had done earlier.
To clarify that last remark, there may be languages that do generics
better (I don't know them, but they are bound to exist),
Well then let me enlighten you: Ada generics are better. I could explain it
to you but it would be a rather large Article and I am unshure if anybody
is truly interested.
but those are not
mainstream.


Well Boing, Airbus, NASA - your are right, not Mainstream.

With Regards

Martin

--
mailto://kr******@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Jul 22 '05 #28
Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
Larry Hazel wrote:
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

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

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

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 indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
IOCCC entries!


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.

you have obviously never even seen a Python program, since it does not
use any punction marks. It ( and Lua ) are about as close to
executable pseudo-code as you can get. Python ( and Lua ) is
"comprehendable" by anyone that can read english for the most part. C
and C++ are not.

Python enforces rules about formatting even, so everyones Python code
HAS to conform to the same formatting rules, thus contributing to even
more "readibility"
Jul 22 '05 #29
Y2KYZFR1 <ja*************@yahoo.com> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> Larry Hazel wrote:
>> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>>>
>>> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
>>> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
>>
>> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.
> 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 indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
> IOCCC entries!


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.

you have obviously never even seen a Python program, since it does not
use any punction marks. It ( and Lua ) are about as close to
executable pseudo-code as you can get. Python ( and Lua ) is
"comprehendable" by anyone that can read english for the most part. C
and C++ are not. Python enforces rules about formatting even, so everyones Python code
HAS to conform to the same formatting rules, thus contributing to even
more "readibility"


You might be right about that. I know neither Perl nor Python, but I
have looked at both - and while Perl looks like a random jumble of
punctuation marks, Python is actually more readable. Not that I could
write a Python program to do anything beyond "Hello world", though -
but I think I could if I took the trouble to learn it.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
Jul 22 '05 #30
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:39:50 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Martin Krischik
<kr******@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
C is the most difficult Language to read and use. And yes, I have 10 years+
experience in C and C++ so I know what I am talking about.
You most certainly don't. C is doddle compared to a great many
languages.
After a few
years of C and C++ it became clear to me that all those great K&R invetions
(array = pointer, type convertions left right and center - to name only
two) are crap.
Troll alert. Arrays are not pointers.
In C and C++ I spend 10 times as much time inside a debugger as for example
in Ada. And I have only 1 year experience in Ada which shows something
about the quality of C or C++.


Super troll alert. This shows nothing about the qualityof C in
general, merely about yours.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Jul 22 '05 #31
[snips]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:39:50 +0100, Martin Krischik wrote:
C is the most difficult Language to read and use.
It certainly *can* be, if written that way. But boneheads can write
unreadable code in any language. :)
years of C and C++ it became clear to me that all those great K&R
invetions (array = pointer,


Arrays are not pointers, they do not equal pointers, they are completely
different animals.
Jul 22 '05 #32
Martin Krischik wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:
Larry Hazel wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

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

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


I have not yet seen a C programmer who does actualy does that.


Then that is a shame. It is possible to be extremely clear in 'C'.

'C' is to me, just Pascal without the "training wheels" Mickey
Mouse - and Algol was probably an improvement on them all.

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


If you have ever seen Ada you know what we mean. C on the "easy to read" as
far away from Ada as Peal is from C.


I'm not sure that additional keywords enhance readability. They
probably increase learning curve. Still, I wish Ada had been more widely
adopted as a standard.

With Regards

Martin

--
mailto://kr******@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

--
Les Cargill
Jul 22 '05 #33
Y2KYZFR1 wrote:

Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
Larry Hazel wrote:
> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>>
>> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
>> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
>
> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.

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 indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
IOCCC entries!


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.


you have obviously never even seen a Python program, since it does not
use any punction marks. It ( and Lua ) are about as close to
executable pseudo-code as you can get. Python ( and Lua ) is
"comprehendable" by anyone that can read english for the most part. C
and C++ are not.

Python enforces rules about formatting even, so everyones Python code
HAS to conform to the same formatting rules, thus contributing to even
more "readibility"


This brings in question the meaning of "readability". I'd say
readability is for those practiced in the language, not "civilians".
--
Les Cargill
Jul 22 '05 #34
Y2KYZFR1 wrote:
Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
Larry Hazel wrote:
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
.... you have obviously never even seen a Python program, since it does not
use any punction marks. It ( and Lua ) are about as close to
executable pseudo-code as you can get. Python ( and Lua ) is
"comprehendable" by anyone that can read english for the most part. C
and C++ are not.

Python enforces rules about formatting even, so everyones Python code
HAS to conform to the same formatting rules, thus contributing to even
more "readibility"


IMHO, Python made a mistake there. Rather than dictate
the input format, they should have accepted a variety
of freeform input, but instead provided a pretty print
capability to produce "conforming format". This way,
the person/editor combination is not punished for doing
things a bit different. I do believe that a uniform
format is nice: but take freeform input, and produce
the rigid format as output. Ie. let the machines do
the work ;-)

In the past, _some_ BASIC interpreters worked this way.
It was forgiving about the format upon entry, but when
you listed it, the format was converted from tokens back
to ASCII in a uniform and consistent manner.

Just my 0.02 worth in this now academic post ;-)
--
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk

Jul 22 '05 #35

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb*****@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:c0**********@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...

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?


Actually, there is a system to Chinese characters. While it is true that
the meaning of some characters is lost even to many educated Chinese,
that is no different than the use of some obscure word
on some English readers. Consider the word, omphaloskepsis. A native
speaker of Greek will get a sense of the meaning of the word, but may
not know how it is used in English.

Chinese characters are made up of a small set of elementary [brush]
strokes. These are combined into a comprehensible set (about 300)
of radicals. The radicals, in turn, are used to compose the more
complicated characters. In some ways, written Chinese is more
object-oriented languages built over a discrete alphabet.

To read a newspaper in Chinese, one needs to know about 1800 to
2000 characters. This is well within the range of the vocabulary of
people using languages built over an alphabet. An educated Chinese
will know a lot more than 2000 characters.

As to readability of C versus other languages, my experience, in the
classroom, is that students shown a long program in C and the same
program in Ada, will nearly always find the Ada program easier to
read when they have never seen either language before.

Richard Riehle
Jul 22 '05 #36

"Les Cargill" <lc******@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40***************@worldnet.att.net...
Larry Hazel wrote: ..
'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.

Easy to read may not be the same as easy to understand. My
criteria is focused more on understandability than simple readability.
I am often confronted with mathematical formulations that use
a set of symbols, or a combination of symbols, that I can easily
read, but which require study and hard work to actually understand.

Small C programs are relatively easy to understand. My problem
with the language is that understandability does not scale well as
program grow. There seems to be a rapid loss of easily accessible
meaning in C programs of any serious size.

I don't have this same problem with Ada. That is one of the reasons
I prefer Ada over C, even over C++, for larger programs. As an
Ada program grows, its understandability does not suffer as much
as does a corresponding program in C.

Dr. Robert Dewar, of NYU, has often made the point that Ada is
more readable than writeable. It has so often been my experience
that C programmers find it annoying to write := instead of = for
assignment. And C programmers miss compound assignment
operators. While these features of the language, along with many
more, make it easier for some programmers to lay down code
quickly, they do not make that code easier to read, even by other
C programmers.

From my perspective, the entire C family of languages, with the exception
of C#, has suffered, in terms of understandability, from the persistence
of original C syntax, and the failure to tidy up understandability has they
evolve from the mother tongue.

When I am in the classroom, for students who have never seen much of C
or Ada, programs written in Ada are almost always easier for them to
understand, on first reading, than programs written in any of the C family.

Richard Riehle
Jul 22 '05 #37
Richard Riehle wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lc******@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40***************@worldnet.att.net...
Larry Hazel wrote: ..
'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.


Easy to read may not be the same as easy to understand. My
criteria is focused more on understandability than simple readability.
I am often confronted with mathematical formulations that use
a set of symbols, or a combination of symbols, that I can easily
read, but which require study and hard work to actually understand.

.... Richard Riehle


The frequent use of C macros doesn't help either. They constantly
hide what is really being compiled, so you are frequently
inspecting #include files or CPP output to see what is really
going on.
--
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk

Jul 22 '05 #38

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

30
by: Dave Allison | last post by:
Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :-) For about 5 years now, I have been developing a scripting/prototyping language that is now available on the net. It's called...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.