Extending Python Syntax with @

[John Roth]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @


"Peter Hickman" <peter@semantic o.com> wrote in message
news:405187fd$0 $2803$afc38c87@ news.easynet.co .uk...[color=blue]
> Cameron Laird wrote:[color=green]
> > Forth. Lisp. Tcl.[/color]
>
> I was thinking of even less than that. Just define a few flow control
> things and get everything out of the objects. I expect it would look
> either like lisp or smalltalk.
>
> There would only be one built in datatype, the message, and all the
> objects would chuck messages around. Thus the language as such would
> have a very limited syntax.
>
> load Object.class;
> load Stream.class;
>
> x = new Object;
> s = new Stream;
>
> s.print x.to_string;
>
> So we have declare variables, load classes and pass messages.'[/color]

Have you looked at Io?

John Roth

[John Roth]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

"Y2KYZFR1" <jarrodhroberso n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c718a6cf.0 403112149.1b3d0 e78@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Ben Finney <bignose-hates-spam@and-benfinney-does-too.id.au> wrote in[/color]
message news:<slrnc4v69 6.lhs.bignose-hates-spam@iris.polar .local>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:50:58 -0500, John Roth wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > Someday people will get over their attachment with being able to write
> > > programs with any old text editor that happens to be lying around, and
> > > being able to print their programs without needing a special
> > > formatting program, but that day isn't today, and I doubt if it's
> > > tomorrow.[/color]
> >
> > I doubt it's ever, because such a day would have to be preceded by the
> > day when programs no longer need to be inspected, maintained or
> > transferred between systems not specifically set up as developer
> > workstations.[/color]
>
> funny thing is VB has survived this long just because you HAVE to have
> the IDE to edit the code. That is one of the biggest selling points of
> VB.[/color]
[color=blue]
> It should not be an issue, just make all the IDE's cross platform.
>
> All the worth while Java IDE's are cross platform. Intellij IDEA and
> Together.
> Maybe Eclipse but it is pretty buggy compared to the commerical
> offerings.[/color]

Java IDEs are cross platform because they're in Java, which is
cross-platform. IDLE is cross-platform because it's written in
Python, which is cross-platform.
[color=blue]
> That is what Python is missing is an quality IDE that is cross
> platform. All the ones out now suck when compared to something like
> IDEA or Together.[/color]

Well, yes. I tried using IDLE, and the little things that didn't work
the way I expected (or work at all) made me go back to PythonWin.
PythonWin is hardly ideal either: it's just based on a very good
editor. You can't use the Bicycle Repair Man refactoring plugin,
and the run facility sucks. It's just better than IDLE.

There are supposed to be Python plugins for Eclipse, but every time
I look for them I find stuff that is so far from ready for prime time that
they're embarassing.
[color=blue]
> anyone that thinks about following up this post with anything about vi
> or emacs can just stop right now and go back to their hole.[/color]

[Peter Hickman]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

John Roth wrote:[color=blue]
> Have you looked at Io?[/color]

It's on my list after I've had a go at lua

[Josiah Carlson]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

> How much real development (I don't mean archiving) do we do[color=blue]
> today on systems without appropriate tools? Very little. The issue
> isn't trying to develop on systems without appropriate tools, it's
> developers that won't use tools that help them work.[/color]

One class of people: end users.

Usually, end users don't need to have an IDE, they just use (not write)
software without a care in the world. Occasionally, they need to edit
something (it happens to everyone at some time), and they need to break
out a text editor. Usually this is an INI file, but there are scenarios
with applications that ship with an interpreter (Freedom Force) that
allow people to change them.

Really the ultimate question is whether we (computer scientists,
engineers, or anyone who programs) want to limit programming to those
with an IDE? I think doing so is wasteful, and requires people who want
to do minor editing to deal with learning a new application, just to
edit some minor sources.

Personally, I find most standard IDEs to be bloated pieces of shit.
When did it become reasonable to need 100+ megs to edit source code?

- Josiah

[Bas]

use -&gt; instead of lambda??

David MacQuigg <dmq@gain.com > wrote in message news:<s2vu409di o5vc9ndl81dcint eagrkpntf5@4ax. com>...[color=blue]
> Seems like we need a simple way to extend Python syntax that doesn't
> break existing syntax or clash with any other syntax in Python, is
> easy to type, easy to read, and is clearly distinct from the "base"
> syntax. Seems like we could put the @ symbol to good use in these
> situations. Examples:
> [...]
> @x,y:x*x+y*y -- anonymous function
> [...]
> It certainly beats adding ugly statements like 'lambda'.[/color]

Couldn't we use -> instead??

This wouldn't introduce the the @ symbol (currently forbidden??), but
only uses symbols that are already used. It is thus just another
operator. The -> symbol is already used a lot in the help strings, so
why not use it in the language also?? Maple (symbolic math program)
also uses -> for anonymous functions.

[Peter Hansen]

Re: use -&gt; instead of lambda??

Bas wrote:[color=blue]
> Couldn't we use -> instead??[/color]

We could use %--*(): and it still wouldn't be any better. Just because
the characters are all used elsewhere is no advantage. It's still ugly,
meaningless punctuation that makes the code less readable.

-Peter

[Donn Cave]

Re: use -&gt; instead of lambda??

In article <0Iq4c.2774$G3. 22476@localhost >,
Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Bas wrote:[color=green]
> > Couldn't we use -> instead??[/color]
>
> We could use %--*(): and it still wouldn't be any better. Just because
> the characters are all used elsewhere is no advantage. It's still ugly,
> meaningless punctuation that makes the code less readable.[/color]

I'm hoping he was joking, but I guess you never know. Surely
there's some humor to be gotten out of the notion that we could
make lambda work better for Python programming by changing its
name from "lambda" to "@".

Donn Cave, donn@u.washingt on.edu

[Ixokai]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

> >This is all semantics, probably, but I don't believe you can make a[color=blue][color=green]
> >strong case that yield is an ill-chosen name.[/color]
>
> It's not ill chosen, just arbitrary. I would be just as happy with
> 'rtn' or 'tsr' or any fanciful word that doesn't convey a _wrong_
> meaning.[/color]

To me, it conveys the perfect meaning. All it takes is having the
right mindset. You yield in traffic; you let someone go along before
you and then continue on.. that's what generators are, perfectly.

Yes, only one definition of 'yield' fits Python's usage-- but that's
infinately better then "Like return, but different".

What happens if you have a second type of 'return-like' statement?

@@return? @return@?

If someone is learning a language, they'll always run into keywords
and such that they do not understand. So they have to look them
up. No big deal. Afterwards, when they get the mindset of how to
think in them, it sticks-- they can then glance down and remember,
and /know/, what's going on.

It becomes again pseudocode-that-works: 'yield X' means, 'give
off X and let the control continue on its way, i'll be continued later'.

However, something like '@return X' wouldn't accomplish the same
result, in my opinion. For some people it'll be too easy to just ignore
the punctuation and think 'return', when its very important that they
not think 'return' in this case. For others, it'll always catch their eyes
and make them pause and think-- which variant of return is this?

A new keyword in this instance is perfect: its totally different, and
totally
seperate from the behavior of 'return', so someone can't just pass it
by with assumptions of 'return', and once they learn what it is, it sticks.

--Stephen

[Russell Wallace]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:15:57 -0500, "John Roth"
<newsgroups@jhr othjr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>How much real development (I don't mean archiving) do we do
>today on systems without appropriate tools? Very little. The issue
>isn't trying to develop on systems without appropriate tools, it's
>developers that won't use tools that help them work.[/color]

I'll happily use a fancy tool when I find one that doesn't suck. If
and when that ever happens, I'll be willing to start considering using
a language that requires such.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.

http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

[John Roth]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

"Russell Wallace" <wallacethinmin tr@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:4059deac.7 4176280@news.ei rcom.net...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:15:57 -0500, "John Roth"
> <newsgroups@jhr othjr.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >How much real development (I don't mean archiving) do we do
> >today on systems without appropriate tools? Very little. The issue
> >isn't trying to develop on systems without appropriate tools, it's
> >developers that won't use tools that help them work.[/color]
>
> I'll happily use a fancy tool when I find one that doesn't suck. If
> and when that ever happens, I'll be willing to start considering using
> a language that requires such.[/color]

Well, two points. First, why does it have to be a "fancy"
tool? The only editors I use basically have syntax highlighting
and code folding (at least, I think that's what it's called.)
There are a lot of other features I'd like to have, but I'm not
about to spend time with a learning curve that needs a full
mountaineering outfit to scale.

Second, what is it about which tools that you don't like?
Be specific, I'm sure that at least some of the tool vendors
would like feedback on their pride and joy.

John Roth
[color=blue]
>
> --
> "Sore wa himitsu desu."
> To reply by email, remove
> the small snack from address.
> http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace[/color]

[Heather Coppersmith]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:58:03 -0500,
"John Roth" <newsgroups@jhr othjr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Second, what is it about which tools that you don't like? Be
> specific, I'm sure that at least some of the tool vendors would
> like feedback on their pride and joy.[/color]

Every IDE is built around a text editor. Software development is
executing processes and procedures, i.e., workflow. No IDE is
quite like $EDITOR and $SHELL, which I have been using for
<mumble> years. Operating $EDITOR is hard-wired into my fingers.
Customizing and extending $EDITOR in my own arguably convoluted
ways, and writing $SHELL scripts/programs/tools for my own
workflow habits, increases my comfort and my productivity.
If/when IDE developers realize how personal $EDITOR and my
personal collection of $SHELL tools have become, and if/when
$EDITOR becomes a drop-in replacement widget for the IDE(s) in
question, there's a chance that that IDE may approach the
productivity and comfort levels I acheive using $EDITOR and
$SHELL.

Remember USCD Pascal?

Excel : Visual Basic :: IDE : Programming Language.

The typical SmallTalk or Lisp environment might come close, but
their footprints are larger than Sasquatch's. Also, those
environments, when done right, are SmallTalk or Lisp "all the way
down" into the OS, which makes for a more homogenous experience
than what I usually feel like I get with today's "modern" IDEs
glued atop an OS and a GUI.

End of rant. Sorry.

Regards,
Heather

--
Heather Coppersmith
That's not right; that's not even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

[Derek Ledbetter]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 9:08:10 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote
(in message <c2sqva$dp0$1@n ews.service.uci .edu>):
[color=blue]
> Personally, I find most standard IDEs to be bloated pieces of shit.
> When did it become reasonable to need 100+ megs to edit source code?[/color]

Not all IDEs are this large. For instance, Apple's Project Builder
(version 2.1) is 2.6 MB, while the Mac version of CodeWarrior Pro 8 is
9.9 MB. These sizes are just the executables, and don't include
compilers, linkers, libraries, headers, documentation and examples. But
you would need all these things for a command line based development
environment.

--
Derek Ledbetter
derekl@serve.co m

Heavy boots of lead
fills his victims full of dread
Running as fast as they can
Iron Man lives again!

[Josiah Carlson]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

>>Personally, I find most standard IDEs to be bloated pieces of shit.[color=blue][color=green]
>>When did it become reasonable to need 100+ megs to edit source code?[/color]
>
> Not all IDEs are this large. For instance, Apple's Project Builder
> (version 2.1) is 2.6 MB, while the Mac version of CodeWarrior Pro 8 is
> 9.9 MB. These sizes are just the executables, and don't include
> compilers, linkers, libraries, headers, documentation and examples. But
> you would need all these things for a command line based development
> environment.[/color]

I never said /all/, I said /most/.

In the same vein as your reply, a standard Python install is somewhere
around 30 megs and includes Idle (not quite an IDE, but it gets the job
done). DJGPP (a c/c++ compiler for dos) is also around 30 megs
installed, and includes an IDE, compiler, linker, libaries, headers, etc.

However, if we were to take a look at some standard tools that current
university students and even a measurable portion of industry
professionals use; Eclipse, MS Visual Studio, and others, you'll note
the tendency of bloat.

- Josiah

[Russell Wallace]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:58:03 -0500, "John Roth"
<newsgroups@jhr othjr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Well, two points. First, why does it have to be a "fancy"
>tool? The only editors I use basically have syntax highlighting
>and code folding (at least, I think that's what it's called.)
>There are a lot of other features I'd like to have, but I'm not
>about to spend time with a learning curve that needs a full
>mountaineeri ng outfit to scale.[/color]

Well then we're agreed, neither of us uses fancy tools :) (Don't know
what code folding is, but I also like syntax highlighting.)
[color=blue]
>Second, what is it about which tools that you don't like?
>Be specific, I'm sure that at least some of the tool vendors
>would like feedback on their pride and joy.[/color]

I wouldn't imagine any of them read comp.lang.pytho n, but the main
point is that basic functionality needs to be smooth, fast, 100%
reliable, not needing you to take your hands off the keyboard or
provide more than 2 keystrokes per operation or install third party
libraries or entrust your source code to a binary database, etc etc.
Get hold of Brief (the 1980s-vintage DOS programming editor) and get
to the point where you can do everything it does, not necessarily in
the same way, but just as smoothly and easily. _Then_ worry about
whiz-bang features.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.

http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

[Josiah Carlson]

Re: Extending Python Syntax with @

Well, two points. First, why does it have to be a "fancy"[color=blue][color=green]
>>tool? The only editors I use basically have syntax highlighting
>>and code folding (at least, I think that's what it's called.)
>>There are a lot of other features I'd like to have, but I'm not
>>about to spend time with a learning curve that needs a full
>>mountaineerin g outfit to scale.[/color]
>
> Well then we're agreed, neither of us uses fancy tools :) (Don't know
> what code folding is, but I also like syntax highlighting.)[/color]

http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/SciTEImage.html

The above link will show you what code folding looks like. Look at the
function definitions.

- Josiah