OO (was: Why is tcl broken?) 
Author Message
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

> If you are a fan of CLOS, you might want to check out the Dylan
> programming language.

> It is basically a thoroughly modernized descendant of Lisp/CLOS with an
> infix instead of prefix syntax.  In Dylan, almost everything is an object

Although Dylan never really made it into "Fernando's elegibility list"
because
it was not a serious contender against Scheme and CL yet, it definitely got
banished the day the Lisp syntax was dropped. I'm still waiting for the day
when the Dylan fans will reinstate the alternative.

But my dream is a `parenthesized Cecil'
http://www.*-*-*.com/

or "all you wanted in CLOS (and more) since you got `corrupted' by Eiffel"
;-)

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html



Thu, 29 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:
> Although Dylan never really made it into "Fernando's elegibility list"
> because
> it was not a serious contender against Scheme and CL yet, it definitely got
> banished the day the Lisp syntax was dropped. I'm still waiting for the day
> when the Dylan fans will reinstate the alternative.

This is an age-old flamewar. It just so happens that there are people
who like infix syntax and detest prefix, and then there are people who
love their parens and hate infix.

It's a matter of preferences, I happen to like infix, and I'm not
gonna change.

Quote:
> But my dream is a `parenthesized Cecil'

You're obviously one of THEM :-).

Andreas

--
Reality is two's complement. See:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/hakmem/hacks.html#item154



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:


> This is an age-old flamewar. It just so happens that there are people
> who like infix syntax and detest prefix, and then there are people who
> love their parens and hate infix.

I have no idea what flamewars have been going on in comp.lang.dylan,
as it's the first time I set foot here, so FWIW, here's what I think:

1. The Dylan case is different. It was supposed to have 2 syntaxes.
2. I was not e{*filter*}d about the Dylan effort when it came out, as it the
main   motivation was to create a new language for some Apple palmtop,
and this consumed resources that could have been used to improve CL (it
could be argued that it was an `improved Scheme' but how about
supporting EULisp instead?).
3. CMU shuts down CMUCL and starts to work on Dylan. Bad
3. Apple decides to drop the Lisp syntax. Bad.
4. Apple drops Dylan.
5. Open Source community embraces Dylan. Great. Multimethods to the
mainstream.

The question is: what prevents you now from to going back to the
original idea?
[I'm sorry, if I was funded to spend time myself in creating a Lisp
frontend
for something, it would be for Cecil. If CLOS were too heavy for
something,
there's much more to gain over there. And good prototype-based dialect
would
be a more interesting addition to the Lisp family.]

Regards,

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira                    
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking            
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM                            
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:


> > Although Dylan never really made it into "Fernando's elegibility list"
> > because
> > it was not a serious contender against Scheme and CL yet, it definitely got
> > banished the day the Lisp syntax was dropped. I'm still waiting for the day
> > when the Dylan fans will reinstate the alternative.

> This is an age-old flamewar. It just so happens that there are people
> who like infix syntax and detest prefix, and then there are people who
> love their parens and hate infix.

Prefix rocks, infix is crap.

Klaus Schilling



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

> Prefix rocks, infix is crap.

Wow, wow, wow. Let's not go there..

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)


Quote:

>> Prefix rocks, infix is crap.

>Wow, wow, wow. Let's not go there..

postfix, prefix, infix etc etc are isosemantic

--
tree searching-ly yrs Robin Becker



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

> postfix, prefix, infix etc etc are isosemantic

Yup. But the deal is to be able to write a parser in an hour (say, in
1950something), and
be setup until the next comet hits the Earth.

Not to mention how invaluable it is not to waste the mandatory compiler
course with the unnecessary half of the `Dragon book'.

And when infix goes wild, a LOT of dollars go down the drain (the one
with a bug-free C++ frontend please raise your hand!).

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

>Prefix rocks, infix is crap.

No, you mean:

Rocks prefix? Is infix crap?

James McCartney  asynth <at> io <dot> com



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:
> Prefix rocks, infix is crap.

(think I (meant you (and (rocks prefix) (is-{*filter*}infix))))

Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:
>> Prefix rocks, infix is crap.
>(think I (meant you (and (rocks prefix) (is-{*filter*}infix))))

prefix rocks infix {*filter*}is   and false =

...as long as we're fighting...  :-)

Quote:
>Stig Hemmer,
>Jack of a Few Trades.

(I like all the languages I know, except fortran.  I even like C++,
although I wish they could break backwards compatibility.)

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
   :-: May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!



Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

> postfix, prefix, infix etc etc are isosemantic

for myself and the others who might not know... can we get an example of
each?
and i remember someone mentioned parenthesized vs non-parenthesized...

Maxwell Sayles



Sat, 01 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:


>> postfix, prefix, infix etc etc are isosemantic
>for myself and the others who might not know... can we get an example of
>each?
>and i remember someone mentioned parenthesized vs non-parenthesized...

Infix (ML and Prolog):

  3 + (4 minus 10) == 1
(parenthesis are not optional)

Prefix (C, Lisp, Scheme):

  function(that(x(1)))
or:
  (do-this (do-that (x 1)))
(Parenthesis are not optional)

Postfix (Forth, postscript):

  3 4 + SWAP MOD do-that
  rinse on   agitate  10 seconds   rinse off
(Parenthesis are not optional)

As a common thread, note that in none of the languages are parenthesis
optional.  In Postfix parenthesis are not optional because they have nno
meaning; in the other languages they're assigned arbitrary meaning.

I suspect that the person who mentioned "parenthesised" languages to you
was actually commparing a language which used only parenthesis for
grouping, such as classical Scheme, with a language like C which uses lots
of other punctuation marks as well.

My preference?  I use C at my job.  I prefer postfix (Forth) for its lack
of punctuation.  I like ML and Prolog because they let me create my own
punctuation (but then I don't use them much).

Heck, just learn them all.  There's time -- there's always time to do the
stuff you enjoy.

Quote:
>Maxwell Sayles

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
   :-: May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!


Sat, 01 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

> My preference?  I use C at my job.  I prefer postfix (Forth) for its lack
> of punctuation.  I like ML and Prolog because they let me create my own
> punctuation (but then I don't use them much).

BTW, you can do infix stuff in Common Lisp
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/code/...

eg.

(defun bar (x y)
   (whatever))

(defun foo (u v x y z)
  (typical-lisp-code)
  (lets-just-copy-a-formula-from-a-book-and-use-it-here #I( u + v * bar(x,y)
^^ z))
  (blah-blah))



Sat, 01 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:

> (I like all the languages I know, except Fortran.  I even like C++,
> although I wish they could break backwards compatibility.)

Quiz: What do Scheme, Common Lisp, HPF and Java have in common?


Sat, 01 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 OO (was: Why is tcl broken?)

Quote:


> > (I like all the languages I know, except Fortran.  I even like C++,
> > although I wish they could break backwards compatibility.)

> Quiz: What do Scheme, Common Lisp, HPF and Java have in common?

And when's Java*, the massively parallel version, coming out?


Sat, 01 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 19 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Why I am not enthusiatic about OO COBOL

2. I am not deaf, but am I mute?

3. I am having problems setting the page break through Active X

4. Why am I getting bind errors?

5. ERROR 48 - Why am I getting it?

6. why am i getting processor stack fault error?

7. Why I am (core) dumping C++ for OOCOBOL

8. Why am I getting a NaN?

9. Why am I creating named fonts if....

10. Anybody know why I am timing out

11. Why I am not reaching callbacks ?

12. Newbe help : Why am I getting this output ?!?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software