Invisible wrote:

> I've come up with a language I'm calling Hax.

...so does this qualify me as a haxor? :-D

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:36:24 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Invisible wrote:
>
>> I've come up with a language I'm calling Hax.
>
>...so does this qualify me as a haxor? :-D

More like a Haxet :P

Invisible's hacket ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> So are the two formalisms of equivilent expressive power?

As far as I understand it, yes. They're just different ways of saying the 
same thing.  It has been a number of years since I've had to deal with the 
formalisms of it.  Also, there may be differences when it comes to updating 
the relations (insert, delete, update, etc), as I don't know just how that's 
handled in the formal math of it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> There are many people who believe that Haskell is a weird and baffling 
> language.

There are many people who believe that English is a weird and baffling 
language.

I kinda like that.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> I've come up with a language I'm calling Hax. I haven't finished 
> figuring out what it looks like or how it works yet. It's basically 
> Pascal with a few tweaks. And by "tweaks" I mean that the similarity 
> between Hax and Pascal is like Java vs C++. Superficially, it looks the 
> same. But if you investigate for more than 5 seconds, you'll discover 
> that they're actually TOTALLY UNRELATED! >_<

As I've rapidly discovered, designing a language like this means that 
the syntax tree ends up being *really* complicated!

I mean, your basic Haskell syntax tree consists of a type for 
expressions, a type for patterns, and a type for type signatures. And 
for that, you get a usable language. (Of course, once you start wanting 
classes and infix operators and modules and so on, it starts to get more 
complicated. But the basic language is really very simple.)

Hax, on the other hand, requires about four pages of type declarations 
to describe its syntax tree. (And, therefore, a similar amount of code 
every time you want to process it somehow.) I'm not even sure I've got 
it right yet! o_O

Hmm, maybe this wasn't such a sensible idea after all. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
TOTALLY UNRELATED! >_<
> 
> As I've rapidly discovered, designing a language like this means that 
> the syntax tree ends up being *really* complicated!

I'm swingin' by my tale in a syntax tree. ;)
Did the original forbidden fruit come from a fault tree?

Is there an icon for Totally unrelated (= out on a limb)? :-P ?

David :)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Hmm, maybe this wasn't such a sensible idea after all. ;-)

Maybe you should rename the language "Hoax" :P

(*ducks and runs*)

Post a reply to this message

>> Hmm, maybe this wasn't such a sensible idea after all. ;-)
> 
> Maybe you should rename the language "Hoax" :P

Considering it's purpose... that might not actually be such a bad idea.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> Hmm, maybe this wasn't such a sensible idea after all. ;-)
>>
>> Maybe you should rename the language "Hoax" :P
> 
> Considering it's purpose... that might not actually be such a bad idea.

Didn't someone create a computer language based on LOLcat speak?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't someone create a computer language based on LOLcat speak?

That would be LOLCODE, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCODE

Post a reply to this message