YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

**Richard Heathfield** · Jul 1 '08, 12:05 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Roberto Waltman said:

<adem24@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrote:
>

>>... a new programming language is needed ...
>>...
>8) There are no reserved words.
>>

Wonderful! What the world needs is one more language that allows you
to write:
>
"IF IF THEN THEN ELSE IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE IF END THEN BEGIN ELSE IF;"
>
or something like that...

Your wish is my command.

Here is the source code for a compiler for the BETTIE (Begin/Else/Then/er,
Then/If/End) language:

/* BETTIE Compiler

The BETTIE (Begin/Else/Then/er, Then/If/End) language
has five keywords: BEGIN, ELSE, THEN, IF, and END.

I'll let you figure out the semantics for yourself.

Richard Heathfield, 1 July 2008
*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

#define LW 16

int t(unsigned long int n)
{
static unsigned long l = 0;
char x[] = "Oh? Oh! Oh okay.";
l==0 || putchar(' ');
putchar(x[(n & 0xFF000000) >24]);
putchar(x[(n & 0xFF0000) >16]);
putchar(x[(n & 0xFF00) >8]);
putchar(x[n & 0xFF]);
++l==LW && putchar('\n');
l%=LW;
return 1;
}

int main(void)
{
char i[256] = {0};
int ms = 0;
while(1 == scanf("%255s", i))
{
if(strcmp(i, "ELSE") == 0)
{
ms = !ms;
}
else
{
if(strcmp(i, "BEGIN") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C0F) && t(0xB0C06)) ||
(t(0xB0C06) && t(0xB0C02));
}
else if(strcmp(i, "END") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C06) && t(0xB0C0F)) ||
(t(0xB0C02) && t(0xB0C06));
}
else if(strcmp(i, "THEN") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C0F) && t(0xB0C02)) ||
(t(0xB0C02) && t(0xB0C0F));
}
else if(strcmp(i, "IF") == 0)
{
(ms && t(0xB0C0F) && t(0xB0C0F)) ||
(t(0xB0C06) && t(0xB0C06));
}
else
{
fprintf(stderr, "Syntax error: %s\n", i);
}
}
}
putchar('\n');
return 0;
}

And here is a "hello world" program written in BETTIE:

ELSE THEN IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF END THEN ELSE END THEN IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF
END THEN ELSE IF END IF IF IF IF IF IF IF END END IF IF IF END
THEN THEN THEN IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF
IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF END THEN ELSE END THEN THEN THEN IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE BEGIN THEN ELSE IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF THEN ELSE IF END THEN IF IF IF ELSE END ELSE THEN THEN
THEN THEN ELSE END IF IF IF END ELSE IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE END
ELSE IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ELSE END THEN THEN IF END

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

**CBFalconer** · Jul 1 '08, 03:25 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

campyhapper@yah oo.com wrote:

CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yah oo.comwrote:
>

> [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

>
This appears to have little to do with the C language, and is thus
off-topic.

You appear to be an idiot unable to recognize a sig. marker. Bye.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

**rio** · Jul 1 '08, 04:45 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

"Adem24" <adem24@adem24a dem24.org.inval idha scritto nel messaggio
news:g48gn4$6nd $1@aioe.org...

The World Joint Programming Language Standardization Committe (WJPLSC)
hereby proclaims to the people of the world that a new programming
language
is needed for the benefit of the whole mankind in the 21st millenium.
This new language not only differs from existing ones by new features
and paradigms but which also brings real advantage by rigourously
preventing bad programmer habits by omitting features which are outdated.
In the proposed new joint language for the world (codename YAPL)
several concepts in use by currently used bad languages have been
eliminated.
All UN member countries and organizations are urged to adapt these
recommendations which are for the benefit and safety of the planet and the
mankind:
>
1) There is no goto statement.
Hidden goto's like break- and continue-statements are also omitted.

I would take "if() goto" and "goto" and would loose if(), while(), for(), do
while(),
etc

For me the base language has to have these points
1) No UB so people instead of speak of UB, they program
2) So it should be easy to master and to program so that whatherver
someone write something, there is not much of say about "grammar"
3) If there is some error in writing something it stop to run
4) it is easy to read and to write
5) it should have only few instruction, no if-loop controls only
conditionals jumps and gotos

so it should be some subset of some cpu assembly

2) There is no return statement.
Instead a result variable can be declared to which the result of a
function can be assigned.

3) There are no automatic type conversions.
When a subprogram should be used for different types it must be
overloaded.
>
4) There are no variable length parameter lists.
Instead it is possible to use arrays as parameters.
>
5) There are no default parameters.
But it is easy to define two subprograms: One with and one without an
additional parameter.
>
6) There is no special "parameter" called "self" or "this".
In a procedure the receiving object is declared as formal parameter
with a user-defined name.
>
7) There is no macro feature since this mechanism is too similar to the
subprogram feature.
Instead subprograms can be used in a more flexible way than in other
languages.
>
8) There are no reserved words.
>
9) There is no conceptual distinction between functions, operators,
procedures and statements.
>
10) The procedure calling mechanism is not based on a concept with an
object-message pair
(An object receives a message). Instead a match is done over a list of
objects.
This more general (and powerful) mechanism is called multimatch and it
includes
the simple object-message mechanism as special case.
>
>
cu l8er
Jesus DeCoder

**contestcen** · Jul 1 '08, 05:15 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On Jun 29, 12:27ï¿½pm, "Adem24" <ade...@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrote:

The World Joint Programming Language Standardization Committe (WJPLSC)
hereby proclaims to the people of the world that a new programming language
is needed for the benefit of the whole mankind in the 21st millenium.
This new language not only differs from existing ones by new features
and paradigms but which also brings real advantage by rigourously
preventing bad programmer habits by omitting features which are outdated.
In the proposed new joint language for the world (codename YAPL)
several concepts in use by currently used bad languages have been eliminated.
All UN member countries and organizations are urged to adapt these
recommendations which are for the benefit and safety of the planet and themankind:
>
ï¿½1) There is no goto statement.
ï¿½ ï¿½ Hidden goto's like break- and continue-statements are also omitted.
>
ï¿½2) There is no return statement.
ï¿½ ï¿½ Instead a result variable can be declared to which theresult of a function can be assigned.
>
ï¿½3) There are no automatic type conversions.
ï¿½ ï¿½ When a subprogram should be used for different types it must be overloaded.
>
ï¿½4) There are no variable length parameter lists.
ï¿½ ï¿½ Instead it is possible to use arrays as parameters.
>
ï¿½5) There are no default parameters.
ï¿½ ï¿½ But it is easy to define two subprograms: One with andone without an additional parameter.
>
ï¿½6) There is no special "parameter" called "self" or "this".
ï¿½ ï¿½ In a procedure the receiving object is declared as formal parameter with a user-defined name.
>
ï¿½7) There is no macro feature since this mechanism is too similar to the subprogram feature.
ï¿½ ï¿½ Instead subprograms can be used in a more flexible waythan in other languages.
>
ï¿½8) There are no reserved words.
>
ï¿½9) There is no conceptual distinction between functions, operators, procedures and statements.
>
10) The procedure calling mechanism is not based on a concept with an object-message pair
ï¿½ ï¿½ (An object receives a message). Instead a match is done over a list of objects.
ï¿½ ï¿½ This more general (and powerful) mechanism is called multimatch and it includes
ï¿½ ï¿½ the simple object-message mechanism as special case.
>
cu l8er
Jesus DeCoder
>
.

Item 1 states that hidden Goto's are omitted. To the list which is
given (Continue and Break) the proposer should add For, While, Repeat,
If-Then-Else as well as procedure and function calls.

**s0suk3@gmail.com** · Jul 1 '08, 06:35 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On Jun 30, 11:46 pm, "rio" <a...@b.cwrot e:

"Adem24" <ade...@adem24a dem24.org.inval idha scritto nel messaggionews:g 48gn4$6nd$1@aio e.org...
>
>
>

The World Joint Programming Language Standardization Committe (WJPLSC)
hereby proclaims to the people of the world that a new programming
language
is needed for the benefit of the whole mankind in the 21st millenium.
This new language not only differs from existing ones by new features
and paradigms but which also brings real advantage by rigourously
preventing bad programmer habits by omitting features which are outdated.
In the proposed new joint language for the world (codename YAPL)
several concepts in use by currently used bad languages have been
eliminated.
All UN member countries and organizations are urged to adapt these
recommendations which are for the benefit and safety of the planet and the
mankind:

>

1) There is no goto statement.
Hidden goto's like break- and continue-statements are also omitted.

>
I would take "if() goto" and "goto" and would loose if(), while(), for(), do
while(),
etc
>
For me the base language has to have these points
1) No UB so people instead of speak of UB, they program
2) So it should be easy to master and to program so that whatherver
someone write something, there is not much of say about "grammar"
3) If there is some error in writing something it stop to run
4) it is easy to read and to write
5) it should have only few instruction, no if-loop controls only
conditionals jumps and gotos
>
so it should be some subset of some cpu assembly
>

All those things are exactly what most modern programming languages
try to omit/discourage (except point 4). I'm not surprised what you
say in point 2 about not being there much to say about grammar, since
4 of your 5 points have grammatical errors. :)

2) There is no return statement.
Instead a result variable can be declared to which the result of a
function can be assigned.
3) There are no automatic type conversions.
When a subprogram should be used for different types it must be
overloaded.

>

4) There are no variable length parameter lists.
Instead it is possible to use arrays as parameters.

>

5) There are no default parameters.
But it is easy to define two subprograms: One with and one without an
additional parameter.

>

6) There is no special "parameter" called "self" or "this".
In a procedure the receiving object is declared as formal parameter
with a user-defined name.

>

7) There is no macro feature since this mechanism is too similar to the
subprogram feature.
Instead subprograms can be used in a more flexible way than in other
languages.

>

8) There are no reserved words.

>

9) There is no conceptual distinction between functions, operators,
procedures and statements.

>

10) The procedure calling mechanism is not based on a concept with an
object-message pair
(An object receives a message). Instead a match is done over a list of
objects.
This more general (and powerful) mechanism is called multimatch and it
includes
the simple object-message mechanism as special case.

>

cu l8er
Jesus DeCoder

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jul 1 '08, 08:45 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 30 Jun., 12:04, Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxin...@dar kstargames.de>
wrote:

Adem24 wrote:

1) There is no goto statement.
Hidden goto's like break- and continue-statements are also
omitted.

>
There are cases, they are scarce but they exist, where goto is
nothing else but really usefull, ...

Others have already answered to this. Just one point:
In Java goto is a reserved word but does not presently serve any
function.

2) There is no return statement.
Instead a result variable can be declared to which the
result of a function can be assigned.

>
Helps you in how far? Makes lambda expressions a PITA.

Why should that make any problems with lambda expressions?
Seed7 (the list is an almost exact copy from the Seed7 manual) uses
result variables which represent the function result when the
function is left. The user can define the name of the result
variable and it can be used like a normal variable. This is similar
to Pascal where the function name is used as result variable. The
difference is that in Pascal normal usages of the function name
(which are not at the left side of an := ) are interpreted as
recursive calls and not as usages of the result variable. In the
following function definition a result variable is used:

const func string: gets (inout string: stri,
in integer: leng) is func
result
var string: result is "";
begin
result := stri[.. leng];
stri := stri[succ(leng) ..];
end func;

As you can see the name of the result variable is 'result'. Although
'result' is also used as keyword in the function declaration this
does not imply that all keywords can be used as variable names. The
keyword 'result' is used in the middle of a syntactic construct (it
just follows the keyword 'func'). As such it does not introduce
something. Therefore the keyword 'result' can be used as variable
name. Most other keywords like 'if', 'while', 'for' , etc. introduce
a statement (or some other construct) and therefore it cannot be
used as variable name.

3) There are no automatic type conversions.
When a subprogram should be used for different types it
must be overloaded.

>
If a type can be converted without possible loss of data, why not
make it implicit. Compilers (should) raise a warning otherwise,
anyway.

The avoidance of implicit conversions gives us something:

For every expression (and sub expression) you know its type at
compile time without knowing where this expression is used.

This principle improves the readability of code.
I am discussing this also in the FAQ, see:

Seed7 FAQ

http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#automatic_casts

Seed7 - The extensible programming language

4) There are no variable length parameter lists.
Instead it is possible to use arrays as parameters.

>
See the D programming language. D even has a feature, that
variable parameter lists are implicitly converted into an array.

As I said already I am not a fan of implicit conversions.

6) There is no special "parameter" called "self" or "this".
In a procedure the receiving object is declared as formal
parameter with a user-defined name.

>
In OOP aimed languages such parameters are implicitly created,
but a fixed name is a must, otherwise code is hard to read.

I see no reason why code is hard to read when a user supplied name
can be used. Non-OO languages had user defined parameter names for
ages. If you want you can use 'this' as user defined parameter name.
BTW: How do you name your 'this' variables when you use multiple
dispatch? Don't say 'this1', 'this2', ...

What multiple dispatch is, is explained here:

Seed7 FAQ

http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#multiple_dispatch

Seed7 - The extensible programming language

7) There is no macro feature since this mechanism is too
similar to the subprogram feature.
Instead subprograms can be used in a more flexible way than
in other languages.

>
Sounds like templates and mixins in the D programming language

Seed7 supports templates, but instead of special template constructs
normal functions are used. Seed7 functions can use types as
parameters and/or a type as function result. Such template functions
are executed at compile time and may declare things like functions.
In this function declarations the type parameters can be used.
That way no special template syntax with angle brackets or similar
constructs is necessary.

8) There are no reserved words.

>
Err, how do you want to code then? Ther muse be a few reserved
words the lexer can recognize. How do you want to reference
preimitive typed then?

There are keywords which are used at various places. Some keywords
introduce statements or other constructs (such as declarations).
E.g.: The keywords 'if', 'while', 'repeat', 'for', and some others
introduce statements. Other keywords like 'do', 'range', 'result,
etc. are used in the middle of statements (or other constructs).

Seed7 uses syntax declarations to specify the syntax of statements.
I use the word 'keyword' when a name is used somewhere in a syntax
declaration. Syntax declarations reduce the possibilitys to use
a keyword out of context. E.g: After the keyword 'if' the lexer
expects always an expression. This makes 'if' unusable as variable
name. This way you get error messages when you try to use 'if' as
variable name. That behaviour is just the same as in other languages
which have reserved words.

9) There is no conceptual distinction between functions,
operators, procedures and statements.

>
See the D programming language. Operators are actually calls to
functions named op_add, op_mul, op_cmp and so on.

Connecting operators and functions with a mapping like + --op_add
is one possibility. In Seed7 new operators can be invented, but
there is no user visible mapping to a function name.

10) The procedure calling mechanism is not based on a concept
with an object-message pair
(An object receives a message). Instead a match is done
over a list of objects. This more general (and powerful)
mechanism is called multimatch and it includes the simple
object-message mechanism as special case.

>
Bug prone and non deterministic. Can make hell break loose (think
about circular calls...)

I see no reason why this should be the case. The technic to connect
a method to more than one type is called multiple dispatch. I wrote
an explanation of multiple dispatch here:

Seed7 FAQ

http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#multiple_dispatch

Seed7 - The extensible programming language

If there are questions, just ask.
I am happy with every feedback.

Greetings Thomas Mertes

Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jul 1 '08, 09:05 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 1 Jul., 00:17, Roberto Waltman <use...@rwaltma n.comwrote:

<ade...@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrote:

... a new programming language is needed ...
...
8) There are no reserved words.

>
Wonderful! What the world needs is one more language that allows you
to write:
>
"IF IF THEN THEN ELSE IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE IF END THEN BEGIN ELSE IF;"
>
or something like that...

Sorry, but Seed7 (the list is an almost exact copy from the Seed7
manual) does not support this. The keyword 'if' is not reserved in
the classic sense, but the syntax defined for 'if' requests that an
expression follows it. Since variables are not written this way, it
is not possible to define a variable named 'if'.

It can be subsumed that Seed7 reaches the goal of avoiding the
misuse of keywords in other ways and not by reserving them
altogether.

If you look at classic compilers (e.g. a Pascal compiler) there is a
distinction between reserved words and identifiers. Pascal compilers
and probably also Ada, C/C++, Java and C# compilers use an
enumeration type to represent the reserved words.

Since Seed7 allows user defined statements (which may introduce new
keywords) it is not possible to hardcode reserved words in the
compiler as it is done in Pascal, Ada, C/C++, Java and many other
compilers.

Greetings Thomas Mertes

Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.

**Richard Heathfield** · Jul 1 '08, 09:35 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

thomas.mertes@g mx.at said:

On 1 Jul., 00:17, Roberto Waltman <use...@rwaltma n.comwrote:

><ade...@adem24 adem24.org.inva lidwrote:

>... a new programming language is needed ...
>...
8) There are no reserved words.

>>
>Wonderful! What the world needs is one more language that allows you
>to write:
>>
>"IF IF THEN THEN ELSE IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE IF END THEN BEGIN ELSE IF;"
>>
>or something like that...

Sorry, but Seed7 (the list is an almost exact copy from the Seed7
manual) does not support this.

BETTIE does.

See elsethread (or http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/bettie/ if you
prefer) for details.

Since BETTIE does support it and Seed7 doesn't, we must conclude that
BETTIE is the more powerful language (bless her).

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jul 1 '08, 10:15 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 1 Jul., 11:31, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

thomas.mer...@g mx.at said:
>

On 1 Jul., 00:17, Roberto Waltman <use...@rwaltma n.comwrote:

<ade...@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrote:
... a new programming language is needed ...
...
8) There are no reserved words.

>

Wonderful! What the world needs is one more language that allows you
to write:

>

"IF IF THEN THEN ELSE IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE IF END THEN BEGIN ELSE IF;"

>

or something like that...

Sorry, but Seed7 (the list is an almost exact copy from the Seed7
manual) does not support this.

>
BETTIE does.

I am sure that the world needs another esotheric programming
language. :-)

Since BETTIE does support it and Seed7 doesn't, we must conclude that
BETTIE is the more powerful language (bless her).

You obviously don't understand the Force ...

Look at the Seed7 homepage, it will introduce you to the Force.

Greetings Thomas Mertes

Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.

**pete** · Jul 1 '08, 11:25 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

thomas.mertes@g mx.at wrote:

On 30 Jun., 12:04, Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxin...@dar kstargames.de>
wrote:

>Adem24 wrote:

>> 1) There is no goto statement.
>> Hidden goto's like break- and continue-statements are also
>> omitted.

>There are cases, they are scarce but they exist, where goto is
>nothing else but really usefull, ...

Others have already answered to this. Just one point:
In Java goto is a reserved word but does not presently serve any
function.

Before 1988,
"entry" was a keyword in C that served no purpose.
Now, it's not a keyword anymore.

--
pete

**Richard Heathfield** · Jul 1 '08, 11:35 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

thomas.mertes@g mx.at said:

On 1 Jul., 11:31, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>thomas.mer...@ gmx.at said:
>>

On 1 Jul., 00:17, Roberto Waltman <use...@rwaltma n.comwrote:
><ade...@adem24 adem24.org.inva lidwrote:
>... a new programming language is needed ...
>...
8) There are no reserved words.

>>

>Wonderful! What the world needs is one more language that allows you
>to write:

>>

>"IF IF THEN THEN ELSE IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE IF END THEN BEGIN ELSE
>IF;"

>>

>or something like that...
Sorry, but Seed7 (the list is an almost exact copy from the Seed7
manual) does not support this.

>>
>BETTIE does.

>
I am sure that the world needs another esotheric programming
language. :-)

That's correct. In fact, you are now the second person to say so - and as
the Bellman nearly said, "What comp.lang.c tells you three times is true."
So all I need do is say:

The world is in desperate need of another Turing-complete but stupid
programming language!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you - BETTIE!

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/bettie/

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jul 1 '08, 01:55 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 1 Jul., 13:38, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

thomas.mer...@g mx.at said:
>

On 1 Jul., 11:31, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

thomas.mer...@g mx.at said:

>

On 1 Jul., 00:17, Roberto Waltman <use...@rwaltma n.comwrote:
<ade...@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrote:
... a new programming language is needed ...
...
8) There are no reserved words.

>

Wonderful! What the world needs is one more language that allows you
to write:

>

"IF IF THEN THEN ELSE IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE IF END THEN BEGIN ELSE
IF;"

>

or something like that...
Sorry, but Seed7 (the list is an almost exact copy from the Seed7
manual) does not support this.

>

BETTIE does.

>

I am sure that the world needs another esotheric programming
language. :-)

>
That's correct. In fact, you are now the second person to say so - and as
the Bellman nearly said, "What comp.lang.c tells you three times is true."
So all I need do is say:
>
The world is in desperate need of another Turing-complete but stupid
programming language!

There are never enough programming languages. :-) I got your irony,
but I would like to discuss the reserved word vs. keyword issue (and
other issues).

As I said already elsthread, the misuse of keywords is prohibited in
Seed7. Just because the compilers of most programming languages use
a table of hardcoded reserved words does not imply that this is the
only solution.

I know that new concepts start in a hostile world, but objective
professional feedback is the preferred reaction to them.

I hope that the new ways that I take in some areas do not discourage
you to think about them. I would be glad if you answer with a
professional view towards my ideas. Besids the points mentioned by
the OP the FAQ (see: http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm ) is a
good starting point for a professional response.

Greetings Thomas Mertes

Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.

**Richard Heathfield** · Jul 1 '08, 05:05 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

thomas.mertes@g mx.at said:

<snip>

>
[...] Just because the compilers of most programming languages use
a table of hardcoded reserved words does not imply that this is the
only solution.

True enough. My own preferred solution is to divide the world into two
namespaces. User namespace begins with an alphabetic character, and *no*
language feature may interfere with that - i.e. no keywords or library
routines may begin with an alphabetic letter. Alas, some languages don't
even follow /their own/ namespace schemes, let alone mine. (For example, C
introduced the restrict keyword in C99. User space? Ha! Stomp stomp
stomp...)

I know that new concepts start in a hostile world, but objective
professional feedback is the preferred reaction to them.

Oh, I know. I just found it quite amusing that, within a hundred or so
minutes of its being requested, I was able not only to design a language
that met the specification, but also implement a (portable!) compiler for
it and provide a sample program written in that language. (Within those
hundred minutes I also devised a *de*compiler, which I didn't bother to
publish.) I'm not sure whether anyone has actually got the whole joke
yet...

Anyway, FWIW, creativity is what counts. Keep coming up with new ideas, and
eventually some of them *might* get through the thick skulls of the CS
community.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

**Juha Nieminen** · Jul 1 '08, 05:35 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

thomas.mertes@g mx.at wrote:

>Type1 foo(Type2 value)
>{
> for(size_t i = 0; i < data.size(); ++i)
> for(size_t j = 0; j < data[i].size(); ++j)
> for(size_t k = 0; k < data[i][j].size(); ++k)
> if(meetsRequire ments(data[i][j][k], value)
> return data[i][j][k];
>>
>}

Your function returns garbage when nothing meets the requirements.

Most compilers will issue a warning, though.

A stuctured solution to your example could use a boolean flag which
is changed when the data is found.

Exactly how is that different from 'break'? (Let's assume a 'break'
which can take as parameter how many nested loops it breaks from, like
some languages have. In other words, you could do a "break 3;" in the
example above, assuming it was supported.)

The only difference I can see is that the 'break' would be
compiler-supported (and thus easier for the compiler to optimize), while
the boolean solution is user-written, which is more work and clumsier.
Also, I don't believe the boolean solution would make the code any
easier to understand and follow than the 'break' solution.

// Find the first value in 'data' which meets the requirements
// imposed by the parameter:
Type1 foo (Type2 value)
{
int search = 1;
Type1 result = Type1default;
>
for (size_t i = 0; i < data.size() & search; ++i) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < data[i].size() & search; ++j) {
for (size_t k = 0; k < data[i][j].size() & search; ++k) {
if (meetsRequireme nts(data[i][j][k], value) {
result = data[i][j][k];
search = 0;
}
}
}
}
return result;
}

Another point: Assume that initializing the return value is a very
heavy operation. If a result is found, you are initializing the return
value twice, for no reason. (If the found value was returned from inside
the loop, and if the loops end without result, the default value is
returned, the return value would then always be initialized only once.)
In fact, it would be enough for the default value to be very heavy to
construct for this problem to happen.

Sure, you could add yet another boolean to take care of that... Is
this supposed to make the code easier to write and read, and/or less
error-prone?

As you can see, I prefer to use curly braces even when they are not
necessary.

That's mostly a matter of style and preference. I omitted them mostly
for brevity (ie. it doesn't mean I consistently avoid the braces in real
code whenever I can).

Btw, why do you use the braces in an inconsistent way?

In a language which has no C for loops like Seed7 the function
would look as follows:
>
const func Type1: foo (in Type2: aValue) is func
result
var Type1: result is Type1.value;
local
var integer: i is 1;
var integer: j is 1;
var integer: k is 1;
var boolean: search is TRUE;
begin
while i <= maxIdx(data) and search do
while j <= maxIdx(data[i]) and search do
while k < maxIdx(data[i][j]) and search do
if meetsRequiremen ts(data[i][j][k], aValue) then
result := data[i][j][k];
search := FALSE;
end if;
incr(k);
end while;
incr(j);
end while;
incr(i);
end while;
end func;

I'm sorry but I have to confess that doesn't look like very attractive
to me. The 9 lines of code in my original function (with the fix of
returning the default value at the end) vs. 23 lines in your example. I
honestly can't say your version is more readable either.

Let's make it clear that I'm all against compact obfuscated code.
However, there's a limit where code becomes *too* verbose to be comfortable.

I know that this solution is not as elegant.
Maybe I should introduce an advanced version of the 'for' statement
like:
>
for i range minIdx(data) range maxIdx(data) andWhile search do
>
What do you think?

A 'for' clause is always a handy shortcut for 'while', so why not.

I also think you should really consider 'break' (perhaps even the
version which takes a parameter, as I mentioned above).

**campyhapper@yahoo.com** · Jul 1 '08, 08:55 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On Jun 30, 10:38 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yah oo.comwrote:

campyhap...@yah oo.com wrote:

CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yah oo.comwrote:

>

[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

>

This appears to have little to do with the C language, and is thus
off-topic.

>
You appear to be an idiot unable to recognize a sig. marker. Bye.

Your immaturity has little to do with the C language, and is thus
off-topic.

YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment