On 23-Sep-08 0:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> OK, so there is where we part. I don't want to think about hardware or 
>> compiler issues when I am solving a problem. 
> 
> Me neither. But someone has to. If you're using a language with reserved 
> words, you're going to have to avoid them.
> 
>> Just as when I am doing math and I feel that I should need to 
>> introduce a new syntax. Standard and new syntax will form my new 
>> framework. Whatever someone else at any one time though were his 
>> fundamental concepts is immaterial to me.
> 
> Yep. Then you should be using FORTH or LISP or Tcl or something like 
> that, right? What language *do* you prefer? 

Ahumm, I mostly use Matlab ATM. That does not mean that I like its 
syntax, it is just my swiss army knife. For things that should be 
maintained we use our MWEB system (Knuth's WEB system modified for 
Matlab). That gives a slighly more expressive system. If we want to we 
can use greek variables with subscripts.
I did like FORTH, precisely for this reason.  Did I ever bore you with 
my multitasking FORTH on the C64? You can't use it for things that have 
to be readable for others. Apparently Andy understands reversed polish, 
but you can't count on that for the average modern student.
I liked Prolog and lambda calculus and functional languages. And 
probably not as a surprise, I like Dijkstra's guarded commands, mostly 
because I don't have a compiler for that*. Must check if there is one 
perhaps.

*) Just kidding of course, it is because it is closer to predicate 
calculus that any other imperative language.

> There aren't very many that let you introduce new syntax to the language.

Afraid so. Lots of stupid graphical interfaces but the use of Lexx and 
Yacc seems to be yet another art lost in the mists of time :(
Just as that you have a number of symbolic formula manupilating programs 
but non that I could find that let you apply predicate transformers on 
complicated boolean expressions interactively.
I think I am somewhat out of touch with 'modern' computer science.

> In any case, you're still going to have to explain the new syntax, which 
> means you're going to have to use a language comprehensible to your 
> listeners. You can't just make up a new language from scratch and expect 
> to be able to communicate with someone else, even if that other person's 
> brain is flexible enough to learn it if taught it.

Sure.

>> Let me reiterate, I don't even care if Haskell allows it or not. The 
>> discussion was if Haskell should visually make the distinction or not. 
>> To which my answer is no, because what is and what isn't a reserved 
>> word is too arbitrary. i.e. some are legitimate reserved (most of your 
>> examples are from that stock), some are reserved but a case could be 
>> made to relieve them of that status and some are not reserved, but 
>> might be. So fuzziness all over, hence: do not treat them visually 
>> different.
> 
> OK. I'd say I'd want them treated differently if they actually are 
> reserved. I.e., if I have a variable called "case", I'd want to see the 
> statement starting
>    case case of
> to have two different color words, for example.
> 
> I take it you don't like syntax coloring in your editor?
> 
Of course I do. I just want to be able to add a few things myself. My 
point is still the other way around ;)

Post a reply to this message