ANN: Seed7 Release 2009-05-10
thomas...@gmx.at
I have released a new version of Seed7: seed7_05_20090510.tgz
In the Seed7 programming language new statements and operators
can be declared easily. Types are first class objects and therefore
templates/generics need no special syntax. Object orientation is
used when it brings advantages and not in places when other
solutions are more obvious.
Seed7 is covered by the GPL (and LGPL for the Seed7 runtime library).
Changelog:
- A new example program, the Comanche webserver (comanche.sd7), was
added.
- The function getNonDigits was added to the scanstri.s7i library.
- Experimental support for new attribute parameters was added.
- Memory leaks in the functions hsh_excl (hshlib.c) and hshExcl
(hsh_rtl.c) were fixed.
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.
fft1976
Dear Jebus! Are you aware of languages like SML, OCaml, Scala, Haskell?
BartC
> On May 10, 1:29 pm, thomas.mer...@gmx.at wrote:
>> Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
> Dear Jebus! Are you aware of languages like SML, OCaml, Scala,
> Haskell?
If everyone had your attitude there would only be at most one language in
your list, not four.
--
Bart
fft1976
Why? Are you implying the creators of those languages were unaware of
each others' existence? I happen to know that's not the case.
BartC
> On May 10, 2:17 pm, "BartC" <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> fft1976 wrote:
>>> On May 10, 1:29 pm, thomas.mer...@gmx.at wrote:
>>>> Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined
>>>> statements
>>> Dear Jebus! Are you aware of languages like SML, OCaml, Scala,
>>> Haskell?
>>
>> If everyone had your attitude there would only be at most one
>> language in your list, not four.
> Why? Are you implying the creators of those languages were unaware of
> each others' existence? I happen to know that's not the case.
No, I'm implying the existence of any of the others didn't put anyone off
creating yet another language.
And Seed7 is rather different anyway.
--
Bart
fft1976
> fft1976 wrote:
> > On May 10, 2:17 pm, "BartC" <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> fft1976 wrote:
> >>> On May 10, 1:29 pm, thomas.mer...@gmx.at wrote:
> >>>> Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined
> >>>> statements
> >>> Dear Jebus! Are you aware of languages like SML, OCaml, Scala,
> >>> Haskell?
>
> >> If everyone had your attitude there would only be at most one
> >> language in your list, not four.
> > Why? Are you implying the creators of those languages were unaware of
> > each others' existence? I happen to know that's not the case.
>
> No, I'm implying the existence of any of the others didn't put anyone off
> creating yet another language.
My comment wasn't about the existence.
Mark McIntyre
Then what was the point of your comment? The only sense I could make of
it was a complaint about yet another language.
fft1976
wrote:
If you are going to invent a half-baked imitation of ML or whatever,
you should first become intimately familiar with the closest relatives
of your language, understand their pros and cons and know all the
design trade-offs. Then explain how your language is different from
its closest relatives and argue why.
thomas...@gmx.at
I am aware of some languages.
My private library contains books about
Ada, Algol60, Algol68, Alphard, Apl, Basic, C, C++, C#,
Objective-C, Chill, D, Eiffel, Elan, Erlang, Forth, Fortran,
Gpss, Icon, Java, JavaScript, Lisp, Logo, Miranda, ML,
Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Occam2, Pascal, Pearl, Perl,
Php, Pl\1, Postscript, Prolog, Python, Raise, Rexx, Ruby,
Simula, Setl, Smalltalk-80 and SR.
I have also several books which compare languages. I already looked
a little bit at Scala and had a glimpse at OCaml and Haskell. But I
will take a closer look at the languages you mentioned. Thank you
for the hint.
I have some knowledge about the competition, but I do concentrate
on my own vision instead of looking all the time at the things other
people do. At the university I saw people so busy looking at the
work of others that they never started to do something except
writing about the research of others. Well, this is the way science
works, but when everybody does it this way no new ideas will be
introduced.
BTW. Did you take a closer look at Seed7 (read the online docu,
downloaded it and tried to write a program in it) or are you just
looking for a reason to ignore it?
thomas...@gmx.at
> On May 10, 3:38 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/05/09 23:18, fft1976 wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 3:11 pm, "BartC"<ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > >> fft1976 wrote:
> > >>> On May 10, 2:17 pm, "BartC"<ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > >>>> fft1976 wrote:
> > >>>>> On May 10, 1:29 pm, thomas.mer...@gmx.at wrote:
> > >>>>>> Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined
> > >>>>>> statements
> > >>>>> Dear Jebus! Are you aware of languages like SML, OCaml, Scala,
> > >>>>> Haskell?
> > >>>> If everyone had your attitude there would only be at most one
> > >>>> language in your list, not four.
> > >>> Why? Are you implying the creators of those languages were unaware of
> > >>> each others' existence? I happen to know that's not the case.
> > >> No, I'm implying the existence of any of the others didn't put anyone off
> > >> creating yet another language.
>
> > > My comment wasn't about the existence.
>
> > Then what was the point of your comment? The only sense I could make of
> > it was a complaint about yet another language.
>
> If you are going to invent a half-baked imitation of ML or whatever,
You say that I just imitate something and in the same
sentence you say that I have no knowledge about what I
am imitating?
Doesn't this smell like a contradiction?
Seed7 is by far not an imitation of another language, instead
It is based on my own research (E.g. my doctorate thesis
from 1986, see the Links section at the Seed7 homepage).
> with the closest relatives
> of your language, understand their pros and cons and know all the
> design trade-offs. Then explain how your language is different from
> its closest relatives and argue why.
Ok, a comparison of Seed7 with other languages would be
helpful. I will write comparison table for the homepage, but it
will take time. In the meantime you can look at the OO concept
of Seed7 at
http://seed7.sourceforge.net/manual/objects.htm
or how the syntax of Seed7 is defined with language constructs
http://seed7.sourceforge.net/manual/syntax.htm
It would be nice to get some feedback about that.
Greetings Thomas Mertes
Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
fft1976
Not the best choice of words with "imitation", but it's still easy to
see what I meant.
Since you are familiar with these languages, by all means, add a
comparison to *ML and Lisp and ask for feedback on
comp.lang.functional, comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.scheme.