![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:36:24 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |