YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

**Malcolm McLean** · Jun 29 '08, 05:55 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

"Adem24" <adem24@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrote in message

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

Replace "array" with "list" and you've got Lisp.

--
Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

**CBFalconer** · Jun 29 '08, 07:25 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Adem24 wrote:

>
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.

.... snip ...

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

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

**Keith Thompson** · Jun 29 '08, 08:15 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

"Adem24" <adem24@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrites:

The World Joint Programming Language Standardization Committe (WJPLSC)

I see no evidence outside this article that such an organization exists.

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.

Then you've got nearly 18,000 years to work on it. Given the number
of attempts there have been to create a new universal programming
language that will Change Everything, that might be almost enough.

[...]

Followups to comp.programmin g (though comp.lang.misc might have been
an appropriate place to post this -- unlike any of the other
comp.lang.* groups to which it was cross-posted).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jun 29 '08, 10:55 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 29 Jun., 19:27, "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.

Mr. Adem24 (I have no relationship to him) seems to make a
joke at my cost. His 10 points are a list of features of Seed7
mentioned in the manual. See the second list in chapter 1.3:

Seed7 Manual: Introduction

http://seed7.sourceforge.net/manual/intro.htm

Seed7 - The extensible programming language

Besides sounding funny I have no idea what the intentions of
Mr Adem24 are. Please accept my apology for sending this
answer to so much groups. I have humor myself, but I will not
uncover my plans to reach world domination with Seed7. :-)

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** · Jun 30 '08, 07:45 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 29 Jun., 22:09, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

"Adem24" <ade...@adem24a dem24.org.inval idwrites:

The World Joint Programming Language Standardization Committe (WJPLSC)

>
I see no evidence outside this article that such an organization exists.
>

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.

>
Then you've got nearly 18,000 years to work on it.

The 18,000 years are over now, because an implementation
of such a language already exists (see my direct answer to
Mr. Adem24). Such effects in time distortion can be explained
by relativity...

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.

**Matthias Buelow** · Jun 30 '08, 09:45 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Malcolm McLean wrote:

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

Replace "array" with "list" and you've got Lisp.

Lisp has goto! :) (GO, and friends like RETURN-FROM etc...)

If a designer of a general purpose language thinks goto is unnecessary
(or even "evil"), he should go back to the desk and think a couple years
more.

**James Kanze** · Jun 30 '08, 09:45 AM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On Jun 29, 7:27 pm, "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 the mankind:

Apparently, this message got held up for some 90 days somewhere.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kan ze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

**Chris Dollin** · Jun 30 '08, 12:25 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Matthias Buelow wrote:

Malcolm McLean wrote:
>

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

>Replace "array" with "list" and you've got Lisp.

>
Lisp has goto! :) (GO, and friends like RETURN-FROM etc...)
>
If a designer of a general purpose language thinks goto is unnecessary
(or even "evil"), he should go back to the desk and think a couple years
more.

Oh, yeah?

My pop11-inspired Pepper programming language is a "general purpose"
imperative programming language that has no goto. It's gotolessness
doesn't stop the Pepper compiler from being written in Pepper.

Most of the "I'd like a goto here" seems to stem from needing
n-and-a-half-times loops (which Pepper has) and poor man's tail
recursion (ditto). No "break", no "continue", no "goto".

What is missing is some kind of exception-handling ...

--
"I don't make decisions. I'm a bird." /A Fine and Private Place/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jun 30 '08, 12:25 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 30 Jun., 11:36, Matthias Buelow <m...@incubus.d ewrote:

Malcolm McLean wrote:

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

Replace "array" with "list" and you've got Lisp.

>
Lisp has goto! :) (GO, and friends like RETURN-FROM etc...)
>
If a designer of a general purpose language thinks goto is unnecessary
(or even "evil"), he should go back to the desk and think a couple years
more.

What about Java?
In Java goto is a reserved word but does not presently serve
any function.

I can assure you that writing unmaintainable spaghetti
code is also possible without GOTO statements. :-)

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.

**Matthias Buelow** · Jun 30 '08, 12:45 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

thomas.mertes@g mx.at wrote:

>If a designer of a general purpose language thinks goto is unnecessary
>(or even "evil"), he should go back to the desk and think a couple years
>more.

What about Java?
In Java goto is a reserved word but does not presently serve
any function.

I rest my case.

**Juha Nieminen** · Jun 30 '08, 03:45 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Adem24 wrote:

1) There is no goto statement.
Hidden goto's like break- and continue-statements are also omitted.
>
2) There is no return statement.
Instead a result variable can be declared to which the result of a function can be assigned.

Is the goal of this language to make the life of programmers as hard
as possible? Something like this becomes difficult to implement:

// Find the first value in 'data' which meets the requirements imposed
// by the parameter:
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];
}

**campyhapper@yahoo.com** · Jun 30 '08, 04:35 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On Jun 29, 2:51 pm, 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.

**thomas.mertes@gmx.at** · Jun 30 '08, 07:55 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

On 30 Jun., 17:43, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks. invalidwrote:

Adem24 wrote:

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

>

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

>
Is the goal of this language to make the life of programmers as hard
as possible? Something like this becomes difficult to implement:
>
// Find the first value in 'data' which meets the requirements imposed
// by the parameter:
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.
Your solution may be elegant, but it is wrong (I know that it can
be fixed easily). Some people would even argue that with structured
programming such bugs would not happen.
Besides that, I got your point.

Before going to the details let me explain the advantage when every
statement has exactly one entry and one exit (this is a side effect
of structured programming without any form of goto's):

If you want to add code that should be executed when the function
is left (e.g. some trace statement) you can just add it at the end
of the function. The only reason that your trace code is skipped is
when an exception is raised and no exception handler inside the
function catches it. If there are no exceptions you know that the
flow of control is always stuctured. If you jump around in your
code with gotos and returns you don't have this guarantee.

A stuctured solution to your example could use a boolean flag which
is changed when the data is found. It can be argued that this is
slower but todays compiler optimisations should not be
unerestimated. A C version of this structured function would be:

// 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;
}

As you can see, I prefer to use curly braces even when they are not
necessary. This use of curly braces allowes that statements
belonging to 'while', 'do', 'for' and 'if' statements can always be
added or removed without unintentionally changing the logic. The
use of a result variable makes clear which function holds the
result of the function. Since C needs a return statement I just put
it in front of the closing curly brace. IMHO a good compiler can
produce code which is as fast as your version.

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 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?

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.

**Roberto Waltman** · Jun 30 '08, 10:25 PM

Re: YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

<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...
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

YAPL - Yet Another Programming Language

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment