I have written an introductory survey of programming languages:
http://www.*-*-*.com/

I hope it will be useful - I would appreciate corrections and
comments.  I have tried to write something I would have found
useful a while ago, and I hope it will help others who are
starting to explore new languages.

(There's also a more conservatively formatted version at
http://www.*-*-*.com/
if people prefer/want to make copies).

Andrew
http://www.*-*-*.com/

Sent via Deja.com http://www.*-*-*.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

The first noncommercially available AI, Mind.Forth, needs to
be taken apart, analyzed, enhanced, and ported to new languages.

Accordingly, if you are just beginning to learn to program,
and I know it sounds chauvinistic, but it is a once-in-two
millenniums coelestial convergence of Shakespearean nature:

            There is a tide in the affairs of men,
            Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
            Omitted, all the voyage of their life
            Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

Mind.Forth is looking for a few good minds.  Please inspect
http://www.*-*-*.com/ .{*filter*}ia.edu/classes/551/primer.txt --
A Beginner's Guide to Forth, by Julian V. Noble -- and learn
simultaneously both the newly {*filter*} AI language Forth and the
http://www.*-*-*.com/ #proglangs
target language of your choice for re-creating the Forthmind.

A couple of points -

You use "declarative" where others would use "logic". The accepted meaning
of "declarative" in programming languages is as opposed to "imperative",
and includes both functional and logic languages.

When you wrote "commercial languages", I thought you were going to talk about
things like Cobol, but you actually talk about C. For a long time, C was
*not* a commercial language - its original user community was in academia.

Matthew Huntbach

  Isaiah, ch. 28 v. 29

   This also cometh FORTH from the LORD of hosts, which is
   wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.

GL
--
Paul W2SYF/4 Ft Lauderdale
"Heisenberg may have slept here... "
Leslie Paul Davies

I use that group to talk about languages that people like me use
to write commercial software.  Whatever the historical origins, I'm
sure people in that position don't feel they are using an academic
language.  But I'll add some qualifications.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.  I didn't have a formal
education in computing and it's not likely I'll get one now, so the
only way I can "study in more depth" is if you give pointers and/or
point out errors.

Thanks,
Andrew

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Lynn

It contains articles by various authors, about various languages.

For instance, "On the Design of Programming Languages", by N. Wirth, and
"Hints on Programming Language Design", by C.A.R. Hoare.

Algol, Pascal, Lisp, CLU, Modula, Ada, fortran, and C are some of the
languages covered.

Note that many compiler texts also mention various issues and alternatives
in programming language design.  My favorite is P.D. Terry's "Programming
Language Translation" and "Compilers and Compiler Generators". Both have
some interesting tidbits about language design scattered throughout the
text. Though out of print, the second title is available directly from the
author (loose-leaf format) for a small fee.  See
http://cs.ru.ac.za/homes/cspt/compbook.htm if you are interested.

The famous "Dragon Book" as well as "Crafting a Compiler", and "The Theory
and Practice of Compiler Writing" all contain various notes about design
issues.

Two interesting web references I have found are:

Reviews of existing programming languages at:
http://www.tunes.org/Review/Languages.html

and "Designing a better scripting language" at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/6888/langopts.htm

Want proof?  How about some supporting evidence, instead.  Consider that
languages as different as Ada, Common LISP, Erlang, and Oberon that ALL
have, as a basic premise, that a language design should help programmers
not produce defective programs.  You'd think that, having a unifying goal
(and it's not the only one) would mean that the languages are more-or-less
similar, but it's not true.  Instead, designers tend to design languages
that are more-or-less like other languages where the more-or-less comes in
because something is considered deficient in the base language.
--

Brokersys  +281-895-8101   http://www.brokersys.com/
12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX  77014, USA

Lynn

Sorry, to put it so harshly, but there really are so many programming
languages around that there's absolutely no point in designing a new one
which while maybe no worse than others is no better. A new language would
only be worthwhile if it really does contribute something no other language
provides - a completely different programming paradigm. If you've got that
far, and have enough knowledge of existing programming languages to be sure
what you have is new and worthwhile, you're not going to need a little book
to tell you about it. You will have already read hundreds of books and papers
on programming languages.

Matthew Huntbach

Apart from that, there have been huge developments, for example, in the
world of functional programming since Lisp was first developed. There are
whole books and journals on functional programming. To read about Lisp
but to ignore all these would be stupid.

Matthew Huntbach

Lynn

I'm just urging caution - a *lot* of work has been done on program language
design, and before attempting to design a new one I think someone should
be familiar with that work. Simple reading one introductory book on the
subject would not be enough - there are whole conferences on the subject
of programming languages. If you're not familiar with all that, you're very
likely just to be reinventing the wheel.

Matthew Huntbach

I'm sorry that I must end my comments there but when you fix those
problems I'll read on.

This survey, and related studies about the usability of programming languages,
are products of our Natural Programming project, and part of my thesis
research. Our website has an overview of the project and pointers to some
additional papers:
        http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~NatProg/

Comments would be greatly appreciated.

John Pane
--