Python and Flaming Thunder
Dave Parker
to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
Flaming Thunder at http://www.flamingthunder.com/ , which has proven
easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
casti...@gmail.com
> I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
> to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
> easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
> designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
posture to lowest energy levels.
Dave Parker
> Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
> posture to lowest energy levels.
Not yet; Flaming Thunder doesn't have built-in graphics yet. But
we're incorporating the graphics from www.dpgraph.com , so when that's
finished, then yes Flaming Thunder will be able to render furniture
and calculate energy levels.
If I remember correctly, I think that NASA did some experiments many
years ago on human posture and found that laying back (like the
astronauts do at takeoff) minimized stress on the human body due to
high g-forces.
Dave Parker
> posture to lowest energy levels.
I couldn't find any furniture created using DPGraph, but the math art
gallery at http://www.dpgraph.com/math-art.html has a sailboat, an
F15, Tux (the Linux penguin), a lampshade, and lots of other things
that will soon be doable in Flaming Thunder.
casti...@gmail.com
> On May 12, 6:32 pm, castiro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
> > posture to lowest energy levels.
>
> I couldn't find any furniture created using DPGraph, but the math art
> F15, Tux (the Linux penguin), a lampshade, and lots of other things
> that will soon be doable in Flaming Thunder.
Mine's been always messing up the color wheel. Do you see anything
analytic* / theoretically necessary / a priori / physical / physically
induced about that?
*Now that's a word from Philosophy Syntax--- pertaining to inherent
definitions of words, any and all.
Dave Parker
> Mine's been always messing up the color wheel.
Messing up in what way? Are you using the colors to visualize
something?
casti...@gmail.com
In a manner of speaking. I'm a first-time-live Information scientist,
just out of work. LIS at school and plenty of computer study, which
is fine. Yes, I am trying to visualize something.
Dave Parker
> Yes, I am trying to visualize something.
If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism )? It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.
casti...@gmail.com
> On May 12, 7:20 pm, castiro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, I am trying to visualize something.
>
> If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
> response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
> body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
> An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
> pressure.
I do hold an argument that one can make too much money for one's own
good quality of life. Am I trying to visualize thermal (and ergo
possibly chemical too) gradients (thermovoltaic)? Yes in part. I'm
pretty generally interested, but where can print layout take you?
Microsales?
Diez B. Roggisch
Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
getting a filter to work, as I did (so I only see his postings being
quoted... a huge relief!)
Diez
casti...@gmail.com
> Dave Parker wrote:
> > On May 12, 7:20 pm, castiro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.
>
> > If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
> > considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
> > response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
> > body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
> > An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
> > pressure.
>
> Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
> of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
> getting a filter to work, as I did (so I only see his postings being
> quoted... a huge relief!)
>
> Diez
I hate to ignore work. Who is the non-virtual equivalent mumble?
casti...@gmail.com
> On May 13, 4:18 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dave Parker wrote:
> > > On May 12, 7:20 pm, castiro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.
>
> > > If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
> > > considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)? It changes color in
> > > response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
> > > body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
> > > An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
> > > pressure.
>
> > Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
> > of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
> > quoted... a huge relief!)
>
> > Diez
>
However, that's just the sunrise I would be talking about. How are
the soft drinks here? Does anyone else have a t.v.? I don't like
mine or have one.
Dave Parker
> I do hold an argument that one can make too much money for one's own
> good quality of life.
As do I; I think there is an optimal amount. Too little, and you
waste time gathering food. Too much, and you waste time gathering
money.
> Am I trying to visualize thermal (and ergo
> possibly chemical too) gradients (thermovoltaic)? Yes in part.
Some of those DPGraph (and soon, Flaming Thunder) may be able to help
with.
> I'm pretty generally interested, but where can print layout take you?
Not far, especially with books disappearing. Our library says that
these days, only 25% of their checkouts are books; the other 75% are
DVDs, CDs, etc.
> Microsales?
And getting microer every day.
Dave Parker
I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. There is value in all
interaction. Flaming Thunder is itself the averaging of interactions
with many computer languages and conversations with many people, so as
to create a language that allows people to tell a computer what they
want it to do, without having to know very much about how the computer
does it.
On May 13, 3:18 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote:
> Dave Parker wrote:
> > On May 12, 7:20 pm, castiro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.
>
> > If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
> > considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)? It changes color in
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I got hung-up on your sailboat and it took me to coffee. But I return
empty-handed, and castironpi does not bother me. All I try to do in
life is write video games. I am not convinced that the colorspace
occupies three dimensions necessarily. But I do like sailboats and
furniture.
I am into city planning, roadways, infrastructure, but don't work -
too- hard. Furniture can be pretty stock and utility on the micro
level--- there's just been runs on the banks before to microize to
certain energy/mass/volume/metabolism levels. People like stuff and
pull.
If I can get a word in, I also like to distribute economy, and
microize currency. So long as currency stays current, nobody minds.
Do you need something done... or said?
Paul McGuire
>
> I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. There is value in all
> interaction.
Not this interaction, I'm afraid. What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.
-- Paul
Dave Parker
> I am not convinced that the colorspace occupies three dimensions necessarily.
Apparently there are some people -- called tetrachromats -- who can
see color in four dimensions. They have extra sets of cones in their
retinas containing a different photopigment. So, the dimensions of
color appear to be an artifact of our visual systems, and not inherent
in the colors themselves which are linear (one-dimensional) in
frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
casti...@gmail.com
My conspiracy theorists know too much. They would question that
mathematical claim of science, that retinas only detect one dimension
of one force. Are we asking if something like that is fundamental to
life? I have been very sceptical about emperical claims, especially
since I just try to render stuff and play Tron.
hdante
I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P
The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is a tank a tank of? Even if it does, developer communities are
willing to sustain it. That's a pretty colinear judgement, that I
find the community sustainable. Does anyone commute to out of
control? What is to out? No jumping down thrown. Tut tut.
Diez B. Roggisch
>> Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi
>
> I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. There is value in all
> interaction. Flaming Thunder is itself the averaging of interactions
> with many computer languages and conversations with many people, so as
> to create a language that allows people to tell a computer what they
> want it to do, without having to know very much about how the computer
> does it.
>
Well, if your actual goal is to create traffic to promote your own product
(I presume so from your mailaddress) then I'm not surprised that you not
*really* care who is responding how...
Diez
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now, speaking of thrown: do try-di-di*3es not mean what we're thap
that they used to!
<celebration>
Dave Parker
> software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
> specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
> programming languages.
Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.
I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).
Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.
Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.
Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.
But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
How come no one said lightning?
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is about $0?
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Flaming Thunder, the lightning one, looked like [ 255, 210, 255 ], but
the next thing I thought was -40 on green.
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now get this: I am talking to someone. #define someone now.
Diez B. Roggisch
> Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
> (Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). So again, since
> many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
> will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.
5-10 times faster for what kind of code? I don't see anything that resembles
OO features of python, let alone more advanced concepts like
meta-programming, higher-order functions and such. Which save tremendous
amounts of time coding. If FT grows these and *still* is 5-10 times faster,
I'll salut you.
And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles. Which above
described features save.
> Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This weekend,
> Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
> languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
> not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
> be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
> implementing.
>
> Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
> awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
> those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The difference: I
> can't afford to ignore users.
Oh *please*! Try getting nearly as feature & library complete as python is
today - and *then* I'll point to all the akwardness of FT. Let alone it is
very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or
keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one
keyword. It's a matter of taste.
Diez
Dan Upton
<davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> > The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
> > software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
> > specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
> > programming languages.
>
> Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
> (and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
> the cost of just one book on Python.
Bah, subscription for a programming language? As far as I'm
concerned, that's reason enough not to bother with it. Paying a
one-time fee, or even once per upgrade, for a full-featured IDE and
lots of support tools is painful but at least justifiable, whereas
paying a yearly license just to even be able to try something out when
there are so many free, sufficient options... There was an article
on/in Wired not so long ago about the economics of free, and how
there's a huge difference mentally between free and not-free, even if
the practical difference is "free" and "$0.01." (Also, I assume
hdante meant, at least partly, free as in speech, not free as in
beer.)
As an aside, I clearly haven't written anything in FT, but looking at
your examples I don't know that I would want to--there's something
that feels very unnatural about writing English as code. It also
somehow seems a bit verbose, while one of the strengths of something
like Python (since that's what you're comparing it to) is rapid
implementation. Just using your "Set ... to" idiom, rather than a
regular = assignment, makes things much more wordy, without improving
readability. Some of your other structures are awkward, for instance
"Something is a function doing" Again, more text with arguably no gain
in readability.
Just my two cents, anyway. I now return you to the resident madman,
who I see has sent 4 or 5 messages while I was typing this one...
Torsten Bronger
Dave Parker writes:
> [...]
>
> Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an
> individual (and even less per individual for site licenses), which
> is less than the cost of just one book on Python.
First of all: Although I consider myself part of the Free Software
community, I have no problems at all with such a licence model.
But ...
> [...]
>
> Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This
> weekend, Python users will still be debating how to fix
> awkwardnesses in the languages (such as FOR loops where you're
> just counting the loops and not referencing the loop variable) --
> but Flaming Thunder users will be getting work done using the
> REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be implementing.
Well, this is besides the point in my opinion. First, what you
consider a wart may be loved by someone else. I for example would
consider a "REPEAT n TIMES" feature as Ruby offers it (and soon FT
apparently) ugly because it is superfluous.
And secondly, *every* language has their warts. So many languages
start as clean babies because they offer little and focus on a
specific domain. But grown up, they include the same dirty tricks
and suprising corners as the big languages.
For me being a physicist and a hobby programmer, FT still is a toy
language. Cute but titchy. It surely has its applications, but if
you produce pocket calculators, don't tell a computer manufacturer
that your machines are much simpler to use. Instead, both things
simply have their purposes.
> Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
> awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months
> and those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The
> difference: I can't afford to ignore users.
Really, the Python developers listen *very* carefully what the users
want. Of course, the response time in Python is months rather than
days, which has turned out to be a good thing more than once.
Tschö,
Torsten.
--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: bro...@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)
Dave Parker
Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting. All of Flaming Thunder's
library code is in assembly language, and Flaming Thunder creates
statically-linked pure syscall CGI scripts.
> I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ...
True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
libraries. And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
Flaming Thunder already does.
For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for
other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
acceptable.
> And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.
Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found
that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
of products that were easy for the developer.
And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
(which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.
> Let alone it is
> very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or
> keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one
> keyword. It's a matter of taste.
Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
Write 10^2.
but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
8 (Python):
Print 10^2
then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
realm of measurable ease-of-use.
Dave Parker
I think it is ironic that you think Flaming Thunder is unnatural
because it is more English-like, when being English-like was one of
Python's goals: "Python was designed to be a highly readable language.
It aims toward an uncluttered visual layout, using English keywords
frequently where other languages use punctuation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(programming_language)#Syntax_and_semantics
> Just using your "Set ... to" idiom, rather than a
> regular = assignment, makes things much more wordy, without improving
> readability.
I think it does improve readability, especially for people who are not
very fluent mathematically.
Also, in Python how do you assign a symbolic equation to a variable?
Like this?
QuadraticEquation = a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0
Set statements avoid the confusion of multiple equal signs when
manipulating symbolic equations:
Set QuadraticEquation to a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0.
On May 13, 9:50 am, "Dan Upton" <up...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Dave Parker
>
Diez B. Roggisch
> scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
> server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
> libraries. And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
> OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
> Flaming Thunder already does.
Your bets don't count anything here. These things don't exist, so don't brag
on them being superior.
> For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
> CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for
> other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
> acceptable.
Quite a revealing statement I'd say. And unless you don't show any
real-world site running on FT that needs things like sessions, cookies,
database-connectivity, unicode and a ton more of stuff FT doesn't support
out-of-the-box or through 3rd-party-libs, I wouldn't mention "the people"
as well. So far, *all* that you've been showing on your site regarding CGI
are toy-scripts. Nothing more.
>> And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.
>
> Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found
> that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
> of products that were easy for the developer.
This shows how much you don't know about customers, and their needs. A
customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is
*fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always* bothers
them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly affects the
price they pay.
And if a average man-day costs $600 (which is not expensive), and the
project is of average size of a couple of man-months - well, you care about
mathematics, do the math yourself what that means that FT lacks anything
but a simple CGI-interface.
> And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
> Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
> (which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
> that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
> cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.
It does require more, because it lacks all the libs and 3rdparty-libs. And
because it lacks features such as OO and other stuff, it will be harder to
write these as well as use them.
Show me how to beat a quickstarted TurboGears/Django webproject. *Then* you
can talk business here.
> Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
> one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
>
> Write 10^2.
>
> but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
> 8 (Python):
>
> Print 10^2
>
> then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
> realm of measurable ease-of-use.
Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when
is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...
Even *if* that would be true, how does a perceived advantage in one field FT
was explicitly created for show that it is the generally better one and
understandable one for more diverse applications?
Diez
Diez B. Roggisch
> customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is
> *fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always*
> bothers them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly
> affects the price they pay.
Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than
python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?
Diez
Diez B. Roggisch
> realm of measurable ease-of-use.
Oh, would you please additionally comment on the ease of use of FT in the
domain of string-manipulation, regular expressions, collection datatypes?
I'm keen to know which 5-10 times faster FT-driven site out there deals with
user-input without these....
Diez
Dave Parker
> is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
> it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...
All of the calculators and textbooks that elementary school students
use, use "^" for powers. Just like Flaming Thunder does. I haven't
seen "**" for powers since FORTRAN.
Andrii V. Mishkovskyi
2008/5/13 Dave Parker <davep...@flamingthunder.com>:
> > 5-10 times faster for what kind of code?
>
> Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting. All of Flaming Thunder's
> library code is in assembly language, and Flaming Thunder creates
> statically-linked pure syscall CGI scripts.
>
> > I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ...
>
> True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
> scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
> server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
> libraries.
I see your assembly language libraries and raise you C language libraries. :)
Python libraries have the speed of pure C language libraries. And
while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
as programs and libraries written in C, they're real hell to maintain.
But that doesn't stop you from telling us, that:
> And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
> OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
> Flaming Thunder already does.
>
Well, we'll see. But, IMHO, this is highly unlikely.
> For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
> CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for
> other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
> acceptable.
Yeah, right, Python is sooooo slow. :) Show us some sites and programs
that were written in FT.
>
>
> > And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.
>
> Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found
> that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
> of products that were easy for the developer.
If I'm customer, than why should I care about FT?
If I'm a programmer, I'd better care about brain-cycles.
>
> And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
> Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
> (which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
> that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
> cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.
Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
y".
>
>
> > Let alone it is
> > very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or
> > keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one
> > keyword. It's a matter of taste.
>
> Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
> one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
>
> Write 10^2.
>
> but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
> 8 (Python):
>
> Print 10^2
>
> then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
> realm of measurable ease-of-use.
'^' is a bitwise XOR. Python uses "x**y" for raising x to power of y.
What's your point here?
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
--
Wbr, Andrii Mishkovskyi.
He's got a heart of a little child, and he keeps it in a jar on his desk.
Dave Parker
> python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
> run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?
The websites owners might not be unhappy, but lots of customers
complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then
eventually the PHP fad will die out.
For example, Slashdot recently interviewed a successful website in a
competitive market -- online newspapers -- and found that to enhance
customer happiness the New York Times uses hand-coded HTML.
"He was asked how the Web site looks so consistently nice and polished
no matter which browser or resolution is used to access it. His answer
begins: 'It's our preference to use a text editor, like HomeSite,
TextPad or TextMate, to "hand code" everything, rather than to use a
wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) HTML and CSS authoring program,
like Dreamweaver. We just find it yields better and faster results.'"
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/30/009245&from=rss
"Faster" wins in a competitive market, so if a programming language
can't deliver "faster", it is a fad that will die out.
hdante
wrote:
Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software !!!!
1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in beer). Read again my
answer, considering this.
Dave Parker
> 1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in beer). Read again my
> answer, considering this.
I misread your meaning. In a sense, Flaming Thunder is even more free
than "free software". Flaming Thunder doesn't place any restrictions
on how you use your source code or the executables you create. There
is no GNU license that you need to worry about.
> answer, considering this.- Hide quoted text -
Diez B. Roggisch
>> Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when
>> is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
>> it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...
>
> All of the calculators and textbooks that elementary school students
> use, use "^" for powers. Just like Flaming Thunder does. I haven't
> seen "**" for powers since FORTRAN.
I haven't seen a power operator in elementary school at all. And even
*if* I did see it, it would have been in the raised-text-variant, *not*
the caret that is a crutch.
Diez
Torsten Bronger
Dave Parker writes:
>> Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software
>> !!!! 1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in
>> beer). Read again my answer, considering this.
>
> I misread your meaning.
... twice. Flaming Thunder itself is not free software, is it?
Diez B. Roggisch
>> Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than
>> python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
>> run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?
>
> The websites owners might not be unhappy, but lots of customers
> complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then
> eventually the PHP fad will die out.
Slow websites mainly come from bad coding. I've seen websites performing
slow written in Java - which should even surpass FT, btw.
> For example, Slashdot recently interviewed a successful website in a
> competitive market -- online newspapers -- and found that to enhance
> customer happiness the New York Times uses hand-coded HTML.
>
> "He was asked how the Web site looks so consistently nice and polished
> no matter which browser or resolution is used to access it. His answer
> begins: 'It's our preference to use a text editor, like HomeSite,
> TextPad or TextMate, to "hand code" everything, rather than to use a
> wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) HTML and CSS authoring program,
> like Dreamweaver. We just find it yields better and faster results.'"
> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/30/009245&from=rss
You obviously have no clue what this aboven statement talks about. It is
not about speed - it's about how HTML is generated, and the negative
impact of visual design tools on that. What on earth has that to do with
the execution speed of a webapp?
> "Faster" wins in a competitive market, so if a programming language
> can't deliver "faster", it is a fad that will die out.
"Faster" wins, yes - in the sense of brain-cycles. Faster coding, faster
changing, faster delivering. If it was anything else, we wouldn't have
higher level languages, and still code assembler.
You really don't know what you are talking about. But you are of course
entitled to your opininon. Time will tell who is the "fad", and who not.
I can assure you I have a strong opinion on that....
Diez
Dave Parker
Get Flaming Thunder for only $19.95! It slices, it dices!
> And while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
> as programs and libraries written in C, ...
It's a myth that they're only twice as fast. An experienced assembly
language programmer can usually get out at least a factor of 5 by
using tricks such as cache-coherence, carry flag tricks, stack
manipulations, etc.
> ... they're real hell to maintain.
That's also a myth. For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is
Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in
the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain.
Here's one of the tricks I use: I wrote an assembly language
preprocessor that takes 1 assembly language source file and generates
the library code for the 8 different target platforms. That's much
easier than maintaining quirky C code across 8 different platforms --
which is why GCC's support for cross-compilation is often so broken.
On May 13, 10:57 am, "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <misho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> You sound like a commercial. Is this your way of attracting costumers of FT?
>
> 2008/5/13 Dave Parker <davepar...@flamingthunder.com>:
> He's got a heart of a little child, and he keeps it in a jar on his desk.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
"Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <mish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
> knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
> y".
OMG! It's COBOL.
Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
algorithms. If that wasn't true then pseudocode would look a lot more
like English than it does. In fact, pseudocode tends to look a lot
like Python.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Dan Upton
<bro...@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Hallöchen!
>
>
> Dave Parker writes:
>
> >> Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software
> >> !!!! 1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in
> >> beer). Read again my answer, considering this.
> >
> > I misread your meaning.
>
> ... twice. Flaming Thunder itself is not free software, is it?
>
>
For Dave, from FSF:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it
refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Now that we're all on the same page, maybe third time's the charm for
a response about FT not being free...
Dave Parker
they will help to make Flaming Thunder a better product. I can see
that many people would like the ability to link to existing
applications and libraries, etc, so I will raise that on my priority
list.
Grant Edwards
> And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have OO
> features similar to Python before Python has the features that
> Flaming Thunder already does.
Well, python will definitely never have a name that sounds like
a slang term for happens after you get food poisioning at a
Thai restaurant...
;)
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Edwin Meese made me
at wear CORDOVANS!!
visi.com
Dan Upton
<matthieu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
> > one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
> >
> > Write 10^2.
> >
> > but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
> > 8 (Python):
> >
> > Print 10^2
> >
> > then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
> > realm of measurable ease-of-use.
> >
>
>
> >>> 10**2
> 100
>
> Why ^ ? There is no good reason why use ^ over ** and vice versa, so what
> you try to prove is not with your example.
>
Actually, I'm a fan of ^ over ** for exponentiation, because it's a
good visual cue for "raising." (What if in LaTeX you had to write
$x**{y}$? :p) Meanwhile, I don't see what ^ has to do with the
regular XOR symbol.
On the other hand, I don't really go for arguments that language x is
better than language y because there are fewer things you have to tell
new students to just accept as something you have to do. (ie, sure,
teach Python over C or Java because it will take them less /time/ to
write hello world, but don't say "python is better because you don't
have to tell the students 'just accept you have to #include <stdio.h>,
and you have to int main(), and you have to printf instead of print")
I V
> I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
> to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
> Flaming Thunder at http://www.flamingthunder.com/ , which has proven
> easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
> designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
A COBOL for the 21st century! Just what we need.
Terry Reedy
"Dave Parker" <davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote in message
news:f6625824-b556-41c2...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
|> 5-10 times faster for what kind of code?
| Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting.
For numerical analysis, a fair comparison is Python with NumPy installed
(or the older versions thereof).
MRAB
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:57:10 +0300
> "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <misho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
> > knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
> > y".
>
> OMG! It's COBOL.
>
> Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
> back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
> mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
> English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
> algorithms. If that wasn't true then pseudocode would look a lot more
> like English than it does. In fact, pseudocode tends to look a lot
> like Python.
>
found was that AppleScript tries to be so much like natural English
that I never got a clear idea of whether something would be valid!
John Machin
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:57:10 +0300
> "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <mish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
>> knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
>> y".
>
> OMG! It's COBOL.
>
> Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
> back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
> mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
> English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
> algorithms.
IIRC the idea was so that managers could write programs in English. It
failed because nobody could write a parser that would handle something
like "The bottom line is that the stakeholder group requires the
situation going forward to be such as to facilitate the variable known
as x to provide the same outcome when stimulated by dereferencing as the
variable known as y".
Janzert
> "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <mish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
>> knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
>> y".
>
> OMG! It's COBOL.
>
> Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
> back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
> mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
> English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
> algorithms. If that wasn't true then pseudocode would look a lot more
> like English than it does. In fact, pseudocode tends to look a lot
> like Python.
>
I don't always agree with him but I thought Dave Thomas' recent post[1]
about 'natural language like' programming languages was pretty spot on.
He is specifically talking about Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) but I
think it applies to general programming languages just as well.
Janzert
1. http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2008/03/the-language-in.html
miller...@gmail.com
> The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
> software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
> specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
> programming languages.
I'll agree that software libre has the advantage in creating a
community, but the fact that this language's environment is
proprietary need not be fatal. Consider the amount of work that gets
done every day using Maple, Matlab, and Mathematica, for instance. I
like software that's free (as in beer or as in speech) as much as the
next guy, but I paid for the student version of Mathematica, and I
consider it worth every single penny. I use it *at least* three or
four times a week, for stuff that'd be, at best, extremely tedious or,
at worst, impossible for me to do without it.
I took a quick look at this "Flaming Thunder," and downloaded the
command line Linux executable. While I haven't tried anything
nontrivial in the language, I have to say it has several things going
for it:
* Cross-platform-ness. I like the idea of being able to compile the
exact same source code for Linux, *BSD, Mac OS X, and Windows. If it
truly is "write once, compile for the world," that's a nice plus.
* Nice web site. Seriously. The web site is pretty slick looking,
and that can only be a plus. The design and color scheme definitely
remind me that this is an environment intended for scientific
computing.
* Nice name. This has got to be *the* coolest thing about the
language. I mean, how can you go wrong using a language named
"Flaming Thunder"? :)
miller...@gmail.com
You have a great point here.
I recently read a blog posting that noted the same thing about Inform
7 (a specialized language used to write interactive fiction games) and
its English-like syntax. I've read completed games in Inform 7, and
they're very easy to understand, indeed. It does tend to read like
English, though somewhat stilted/formal/artificial.
Writing it, on the other hand (at least according to to said blog
post), is a bit more difficult. Because the syntax is *so* English-
like, one tends to want to write things that would be natural in
English. However, because the compiler doesn't actually understand
natural English, this frequently doesn't work.
Python, OTOH, definitely *doesn't* have this sort of impedance
mismatch for me. Python code looks like *code*, to be sure, but the
language allows you to forget about most of the nitty-gritty details
and just get stuff done. That's what I like about it -- *not* that
it's "English-like," in any way.
Lie
wrote:
> > 5-10 times faster for what kind of code?
>
> library code is in assembly language, and Flaming Thunder creates
> statically-linked pure syscall CGI scripts.
>
> > I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ...
>
> True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
> scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
> server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
> OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
> Flaming Thunder already does.
>
> CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for
> other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
> acceptable.
I don't think so, even Microsoft, the huge money netter, realized that
nobody would use their new .NET framework if they don't provide free
compilers for it, they only sold their IDE, not their compilers (did I
mention that the Visual Studio Express is free as in beer? And Express
isn't a crippled compiler)
> > And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.
>
> Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found
> that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
> of products that were easy for the developer.
>
> And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
> Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
> (which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
> that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
> cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.
You keep mentioning that the original goals of Python is to "make it
English-like", well, I can say, you are wrong. The goals of Python is
to make a usable language that have a clean and clutter-free syntax,
which is clearly the inverse of FT's goal. To say, Python's goal is to
make simple syntax that is easy to learn, learning process is
something which can't be avoided unless you've created a natural
language programming language.
As I see it, FT aimed to be a natural language programming language,
well, unless you can parse script like this;
Write down "Hello World" to the file in "C:\test.txt" then print the
output to the printer, if no printer can be found, then tell the user
"Cannot Find Printer" then write a log file that printing has failed.
Unless a = b, then make c equal to 4, or raise 5 to the power of 8 and
assign that to c when a is also equal to d. If the page has been
printed, then print a + b + c + d to the screen and wait for user
input up to 8 seconds before quitting.
Anything less than that, you've failed to create natural language
parser. The current state of FT, as I see it, is no more smarter or
intelligible or readable than Python, albeit with much more
unnecessary verbosity, which in Python, is frowned upon. Anything
between the current FT and a real natural language parser is a verbose
Perl ("there is more than one way to do it").
> > Let alone it is
> > very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or
> > keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one
> > keyword. It's a matter of taste.
>
> Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
> one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
>
> Write 10^2.
>
> but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
> 8 (Python):
>
> Print 10^2
>
> then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
> realm of measurable ease-of-use.
Lol, that only means you haven't read the documentation of the
language. You can't write program without understanding the language,
which usually means reading the documentation, even in FT. Except in a
real natural language programming language, which you can write
anything and the compiler would (hopefully, as natural language has
many ambiguity) understand whatever you've written.
(snip)
s0s...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
> > software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
> > specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
> > programming languages.
>
> (and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
> the cost of just one book on Python.
>
It doesn't matter if it's $19.95 or $0.1; why would anyone even bother
looking at such a weird and unconventional language? And why do you
bring up books? Are Flaming Thunder books free? (I doubt there's even
one).
> I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
> use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
> time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
> (unless, of course, their time is worth $0).
Easier? Such an unconventionality? I don't think anybody will ever
need an easier language than Python; Python touched bottom on that
area.
> Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
> Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
> (Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). So again, since
> many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
> will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.
I doubt that any Python "user" (please don't say, "user", Python
programmers are not customers of some clunky proprietary product,
they're programmers using a open source tool) has ever touched
"Flaming Thunder", or anything that even looks like that, since Python
programmers are somewhat more conventional, more like in the C lang,
so they may use things like Java, C/C++, but never something that says
"Set this to this"...
Also, Python is relatively slow, compared to compiled languages. But
if anyone wants speed, they'll go for C, which can be around 50-200
times faster than Python. It's speed of development versus speed of
execution. So why would anyone use such an unconventional thing like
your language, which is statically typed (is it?), if they would only
gain from 5-10 times faster?
> Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This weekend,
> Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
> languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
> not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
> be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
> implementing.
You claim that "repeat n times" if better than for loops (it's "for",
not "FOR"). It's a matter of taste. But just out of a wild guess, I'd
say one 100% of the developers around the world (except you) will
always prefer for loops rather than your weird thing.
> Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
> awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
> those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The difference: I
> can't afford to ignore users.
Again, if may be awkward for you, but most of us around here (well,
all, really) will never try to program something by saying
"repeat..." (as I said, it's a matter of taste, and you have a pretty
weird taste).
Now, let's be realistic for a moment. The big crack you call a
programming language will never get any attention. So get out of home
and go get a life.
Lie
wrote:
> > ... there's something that feels very unnatural about writing English as code.
>
> I think it is ironic that you think Flaming Thunder is unnatural
> because it is more English-like, when being English-like was one of
> Python's goals: "Python was designed to be a highly readable language.
> It aims toward an uncluttered visual layout, using English keywords
> frequently where other languages use punctuation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(programming_language)#Syntax_and...
Python was designed to be _highly readable language_. It aims toward
_uncluttered visual layout_, using _English keywords ... where other
languages uses punctuation_.
Where in that statement, that says Python aims to be English-like? It
only says Python uses English keywords instead of punctuations such as
curly braces, &&, ||, etc which is remotely far away from trying to be
English-like. What I see is that, FT in its current form, aims to be a
readable language, which doesn't concern itself for cluttering the
code's visual layout.
Verbosity ≠ Readability
I even remembered someone saying that probably one of Python's goal is
to make you from press only the necessary keystrokes. If I don't
misremember it, it was in Thinking in Python.
> > Just using your "Set ... to" idiom, rather than a
> > regular = assignment, makes things much more wordy, without improving
> > readability.
>
> I think it does improve readability, especially for people who are not
> very fluent mathematically.
But it hurts readability for people who prefers simplicity over
everything and that means you've just violated KISS design principle
(Keep It Simple, Stupid) which is also a persistent feature in UNIX
philosophy (Small is beautiful, Rule of Simplicity), and Python's Zen
(Simple is better than Complex).
> Also, in Python how do you assign a symbolic equation to a variable?
> Like this?
>
> QuadraticEquation = a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0
>
Last time I checked, it was a syntax error there.
> Set statements avoid the confusion of multiple equal signs when
> manipulating symbolic equations:
>
> Set QuadraticEquation to a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0.
>
(snip)
Lie
wrote:
> > Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than
> > python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
> > run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?
>
> The websites owners might not be unhappy, but lots of customers
> complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then
> eventually the PHP fad will die out.
>
> competitive market -- online newspapers -- and found that to enhance
> customer happiness the New York Times uses hand-coded HTML.
>
> "He was asked how the Web site looks so consistently nice and polished
> no matter which browser or resolution is used to access it. His answer
> begins: 'It's our preference to use a text editor, like HomeSite,
> TextPad or TextMate, to "hand code" everything, rather than to use a
> wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) HTML and CSS authoring program,
> like Dreamweaver. We just find it yields better and faster results.'"http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/30/009245&from=rss
Hello, you're showing a sign of negligence (and ignorance). HTML is a
data descriptor language, PHP is a process descriptor (scripting)
language. They are not interchangeable, and most PHP code produces
HTML in the end. Them saying that they handcode everything means
they're now using a handcoded HTML with PHP instead of WYSIWYG HTML
with PHP they used previously. PHP is still used down there. And if a
big, well-known website claimed that they handcode is a big news to
you, you're just ignorant enough to ignore the fact that most if not
ALL large website is handcoded since they used scripting (mainly as
PHP and Javascript) extensively so that WYSIWYG is not the easiest way
to do it. WYSIWYG is good enugh for static website which most mediocre
website needs, not for dynamic site which is the need for any huge
website. And anything much huger would use a collaboration between
PHP, HTML, Javascript, and a real programming language (like C-family,
Python, Java, Basic). What do you reckon the search engine behind
Google is written in? PHP?
> "Faster" wins in a competitive market, so if a programming language
> can't deliver "faster", it is a fad that will die out.
Faster in what sense? As I can see it, to write something that
requires 5 keystrokes in Python (a = b) requires 9 keystrokes in FT
(Set a to b) that's almost double. And haven't I mentioned FT's dot .
is just like C's semicolon ;? Would it need a professor to mention
that any program code of reasonable length would need to be indented?
Which FT seems to discourage?
And it seems that FT is ignorant enough to ignore the rule it have
created itself before. If it doesn't cojoin english words such as Go
To, why it cojoins Writeline, squareroot? And if I want to create a
function name that consist of more than one word, I would have to
cojoin the words, what's the point in that?
And your 8 by 8 cross compiler doesn't impress me at all, they're all
based on x86/IA-32 architecture which is quite similar, no PowerPC,
SPARC, ARM, no other CISC or RISC architecture. And your compiler is a
single language compiler instead of three dimensional compiler that
GCC is (cross platform, cross target platform, cross language).
(snip)
Lie
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Dave Parker
> <davepar...@flamingthunder.com> declaimed the following in
> comp.lang.python:
>
> > > ... there's something that feels very unnatural about writing English as code.
>
> > I think it is ironic that you think Flaming Thunder is unnatural
> > because it is more English-like, when being English-like was one of
> > Python's goals: "Python was designed to be a highly readable language.
> > It aims toward an uncluttered visual layout, using English keywords
> > frequently where other languages use punctuation."
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(programming_language)#Syntax_and...
>
> "English" is just a qualifier...
>
> If you want to follow this to the limit, the ^ vs ** would
> disappear...
>
> let x be y raised to z
I'm doubting that anyone would rely on a natural language programming
language written by someone who has misunderstood other's post 3-4
times, and have misquoted news story several times because of his
misunderstanding. If he can't even understand English text properly,
how could he write a natural language parser?
Lie
> And your 8 by 8 cross compiler doesn't impress me at all, they're all
> based on x86/IA-32 architecture which is quite similar, no PowerPC,
> SPARC, ARM, no other CISC or RISC architecture. And your compiler is a
> single language compiler instead of three dimensional compiler that
> GCC is (cross platform, cross target platform, cross language).
And to add, I also need to mention that Python doesn't need to be
compiled at all, its py and pyo file is architecture independent.
Unlike some languages that still need to be compiled.
Bruno Desthuilliers
(snip spam)
Please stop spamming here trying to sell your dumbass proprietary basic.
J. Clifford Dyer
> > You sound like a commercial.
>
>
> > And while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
> > as programs and libraries written in C, ...
>
> It's a myth that they're only twice as fast. An experienced assembly
> language programmer can usually get out at least a factor of 5 by
> using tricks such as cache-coherence, carry flag tricks, stack
> manipulations, etc.
>
> > ... they're real hell to maintain.
>
> That's also a myth. For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is
> Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in
> the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
> compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain.
Not only is it the world's only "single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
compiler," but according to google, it's also the world's only "shotgun
cross compiler" period. But I guess if you make up your own terminology
you're bound to be unique. :) Do you mind if I ask: what exactly is a
single-asset 8x8 shotgun cross compiler, and what makes that of any
value to me?
Cheers,
Cliff
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can examine those criteria by trying to buy a chair. Is Tron good
practice for Opticals? Who wants a memory lane crossing? Is
compiling bad?
Jean-Paul Calderone
>On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 10:33 -0700, Dave Parker wrote:
>> > You sound like a commercial.
>>
>> Get Flaming Thunder for only $19.95! It slices, it dices!
>>
>> > And while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
>> > as programs and libraries written in C, ...
>>
>> It's a myth that they're only twice as fast. An experienced assembly
>> language programmer can usually get out at least a factor of 5 by
>> using tricks such as cache-coherence, carry flag tricks, stack
>> manipulations, etc.
>>
>> > ... they're real hell to maintain.
>>
>> That's also a myth. For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is
>> Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in
>> the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
>> compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain.
>
>Not only is it the world's only "single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
>compiler," but according to google, it's also the world's only "shotgun
>cross compiler" period. But I guess if you make up your own terminology
>you're bound to be unique. :) Do you mind if I ask: what exactly is a
>single-asset 8x8 shotgun cross compiler, and what makes that of any
>value to me?
The web page explains. It's a compiler that runs on 8 platforms and can
generate executables for any of them on any of them. It's not _totally_
clear about what "single-asset" means, but it gives the impression (and
the term somewhat suggests) that this means there's a single executable
that does all of this (compare to gcc's design, where support for cross
compiling to another arch is provided by a separate executable).
"Shotgun" probably just sounds cool.
Jean-Paul
Diez B. Roggisch
>>> Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in
>>> the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
>>> compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain.
>>Not only is it the world's only "single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross
>>compiler," but according to google, it's also the world's only "shotgun
>>cross compiler" period. But I guess if you make up your own terminology
>>you're bound to be unique. :) Do you mind if I ask: what exactly is a
>>single-asset 8x8 shotgun cross compiler, and what makes that of any
>>value to me?
>
> The web page explains. It's a compiler that runs on 8 platforms and can
> generate executables for any of them on any of them. It's not _totally_
> clear about what "single-asset" means, but it gives the impression (and
> the term somewhat suggests) that this means there's a single executable
> that does all of this (compare to gcc's design, where support for cross
> compiling to another arch is provided by a separate executable).
Which isn't too hard if all you have are simple datatypes as a handfull
numerical types + strings.
Besides, from what I see, the supported platforms all are x86, 32bit &
64bit. And I bet GCC works pretty unmodified amongst these as well - only
binary formats differ. But let Flaming Thunder grow a library system with
dynamic loading, and I wonder how well his crosscompiler works..
Diez
Bruno Desthuilliers
>> 5-10 times faster for what kind of code?
>
> Mostly numerical analysis
Benches, please ? I mean : benches using Python's numpy or similar
packages - that is, what anyone doing numerical intensive computation in
Python would use.
> and CGI scripting.
Is there anyone still doing cgi nowadays ???
>> I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ...
>
> True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
Hopefully. And you don't see much cgi script at all, because we figured
much better ways to do web programming.
> For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
> CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for
> other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
> acceptable.
Go tell this to google, youtube etc...
> Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
> one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):
>
> Write 10^2.
>
> but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
> 8 (Python):
>
> Print 10^2
This doesn't "give" 8 - this raises a syntax error.
Please RTFM :
1/ this is 'print', not 'Print'
2/ '^' is the bitwise XOR operator
ok, so not only do you spam this newsgroup, but you're also a clueless
troll.
casti...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
8x8 is pretty easy to aim for. Turn on 16x16, and you're the laptop
to stand on. FxF?
Dotan Cohen
> 8x8 is pretty easy to aim for. Turn on 16x16, and you're the laptop
> to stand on. FxF?
I'll see your 16x16 and raise you 32x32. Any number is pretty easy to
aim for when one can arbitrarily invent 2nx2n.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Luis Zarrabeitia
> The websites owners might not be unhappy, but lots of customers
> complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then
> eventually the PHP fad will die out.
On my [modest] experience, bandwidth trumps code speed by a large fraction. My
experience is tainted, though, with me living in Cuba and Cuba having almost
no bandwidth available.
> For example, Slashdot recently interviewed a successful website in a
> competitive market -- online newspapers -- and found that to enhance
> customer happiness the New York Times uses hand-coded HTML.
>
> "He was asked how the Web site looks so consistently nice and polished
> no matter which browser or resolution is used to access it. His answer
> begins: 'It's our preference to use a text editor, like HomeSite,
> TextPad or TextMate, to "hand code" everything, rather than to use a
> wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) HTML and CSS authoring program,
> like Dreamweaver. We just find it yields better and faster results.'"
So, they edit the HTML code by hand. The interview explicitly mentions the
features "consistently nice and polished", not "faster to compute". You can
always throw more hardware when the problem is about speed. The real edge on
your competitive marked should be the "consistently nice and polished", and
neither python, nor [I hope] Flaming Thunder is going to help you with that.
> "Faster" wins in a competitive market, so if a programming language
> can't deliver "faster", it is a fad that will die out.
I find it more likely that the users are more concerned about how quickly the
latest tidbit reaches your frontpage than with the extra few milisenconds
achieved by switching the programming language or throwing another server in
the cluster.
--
Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie)
Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH.
http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie
bruno.des...@gmail.com
(snip)
> IIRC the idea was so that managers could write programs in English. It
> failed because nobody could write a parser that would handle something
> like "The bottom line is that the stakeholder group requires the
> situation going forward to be such as to facilitate the variable known
> as x to provide the same outcome when stimulated by dereferencing as the
> variable known as y".
John, I usually don't agree much with both what you say and how you
say it, but I must admit that this one is, well... just brillant !-)
(IOW: rofl, keyboard, and +1 QOTW)
J. Cliff Dyer
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
Agreed. Best. Synonym. EVAR.
(I won't give away the fun by saying what it's a synonym for)
Cheers,
Cliff
bruno.des...@gmail.com
> On May 14, 12:51 pm, Lie <Lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And your 8 by 8 cross compiler doesn't impress me at all, they're all
> > based on x86/IA-32 architecture which is quite similar, no PowerPC,
> > SPARC, ARM, no other CISC or RISC architecture. And your compiler is a
> > single language compiler instead of three dimensional compiler that
> > GCC is (cross platform, cross target platform, cross language).
>
> And to add, I also need to mention that Python doesn't need to be
> compiled at all,
No language needs compilation - it's an implementation problem, not a
language problem. Now all the Python's implementations I know do use
compilation (to byte-code).
> its py and pyo file is architecture independent.
True, but this is not strictly related to being compiled or not.
bruno.des...@gmail.com
> > Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than
> > python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
> > run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?
>
> complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then
> eventually the PHP fad will die out.
>
supposedly way faster than Python. And even a static (pure HTML) web
site can become more than painfully slow if the server can't handle
the load, as anyone working in the field could tell you. But this is
obviously one more area where you are just totally clueless.
bruno.des...@gmail.com
> > All of the calculators and textbooks that elementary school students
> > use, use "^" for powers.
I've never seen this symbol in textbooks. In textbooks, powers are
written using superscript.
>> Just like Flaming Thunder does. I haven't
> > seen "**" for powers since FORTRAN.
I haven't seen any language using '^' as the power operator so far -
but I've seen quite a lot of them using it as the bitwise XOR operator.
bruno.des...@gmail.com
(snip)
> Also, in Python how do you assign a symbolic equation to a variable?
> Like this?
>
> QuadraticEquation = a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0
quadratic_equation = lambda x, b, c : a*(x**2) + b*x + c == 0
or if x, b and c are supposed to be captured from the current
namespace:
quadratic_equation = lambda : a*(x**2) + b*x + c == 0
> Set statements avoid the confusion of multiple equal signs when
> manipulating symbolic equations:
using '=' for assignement and '==' for equality test does the same
thing. And it's a very common pattern in programming languages.
MRAB
John Salerno
Dave Parker <davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
> to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
> Flaming Thunder at http://www.flamingthunder.com/ , which has proven
> easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
> designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
What an interesting and weird language! :) But I have a question concerning something like this, from the website:
----------------------------------------------------
Flaming Thunder uses set statements for assignment:
Set x to "concrete".
Flaming Thunder does not abbreviate or cojoin common English words. For example, go and to are separate words:
Read commmand. If command = "quit" then go to end.
-----------------------------------------------------
There doesn't seem to be any consistency here. Why say:
set x to "concrete"
and then say:
if command = "quit"
Why are you using the "set...to..." terminology instead of the "=" for assignments, but then in an if test statement, you *do* use the "="???
Would it be valid to say:
x = "concrete"
or to say:
if command (is) set to "quit"
??????
John Salerno
Dave Parker <davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
> use and understand than Python
I respectfully disagree.
> Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python.
That's truly disappointing.
> This weekend,
> Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
> languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
> not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
> be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
> implementing.
FT seems like all "awkwardnesses" to me.
John Salerno
Dave Parker <davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> > I'm pretty generally interested, but where can print layout take you?
>
> Not far, especially with books disappearing. Our library says that
> these days, only 25% of their checkouts are books; the other 75% are
> DVDs, CDs, etc.
Sorry, but I must point out a logical flaw in this statement. Assuming your stats are even true, just because books are now only 25% of checkouts rather than, for example, 80%, doesn't necessarily imply that any less books are being checked out (i.e. "disappearing"). It can just as easily mean that *more* of the other things are being checked out while books remain the same.
Example:
Total number of items checked out: 100
Total number of books checked out: 80
Percentage of books checked out: 80%
Total number of items checked out: 320
Total number of books checked out: 80 # same as above
Percentage of books checked out: 25%
Lie
It's true, it's implementation problem whether a language is compiled
or not, but what I was emphasizing was that Python's code is
architecture independent at all stages (that is visible to the user
and the programmer), on the other hand, a compiled code is a compiled
code is a compiled code, it cannot be architecture independent without
packing multiple binaries in the same executable (like in Macintosh's
universal binary) or using an emulation (with huge overheads) or at
least using a compatibility layer (which doesn't always work) and all
this is done in the layer that is visible to user and programmer
(programmer having to compile against everything and user having to
download the correct executable) instead of being done in a platform
independent way that interpreted language like Python have.
bruno.des...@gmail.com
> On May 15, 4:08 am, "bruno.desthuilli...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <bruno.desthuilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14 mai, 08:08, Lie <Lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 12:51 pm, Lie <Lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And your 8 by 8 cross compiler doesn't impress me at all, they're all
> > > > based on x86/IA-32 architecture which is quite similar, no PowerPC,
> > > > SPARC, ARM, no other CISC or RISC architecture. And your compiler is a
> > > > single language compiler instead of three dimensional compiler that
> > > > GCC is (cross platform, cross target platform, cross language).
>
> > > And to add, I also need to mention that Python doesn't need to be
> > > compiled at all,
>
> > No language needs compilation - it's an implementation problem, not a
> > language problem. Now all the Python's implementations I know do use
> > compilation (to byte-code).
> > > its py and pyo file is architecture independent.
>
> > True, but this is not strictly related to being compiled or not.
>
> It's true, it's implementation problem whether a language is compiled
> or not, but what I was emphasizing was that Python's code is
> architecture independent at all stages (that is visible to the user
> and the programmer), on the other hand, a compiled code is a compiled
> code is a compiled code,
Ever wondered what all these .pyc files were ?
> it cannot be architecture independent without
> packing multiple binaries in the same executable (like in Macintosh's
> universal binary) or using an emulation (with huge overheads) or at
> least using a compatibility layer (which doesn't always work) and all
> this is done in the layer that is visible to user and programmer
> (programmer having to compile against everything and user having to
> download the correct executable) instead of being done in a platform
> independent way that interpreted language like Python have.
Python is not interpreted, because being interpreted is a feature of
an implementation, not of a language. And so far, no known Python
implementation is (strictly speaking) interpreted - they all compile
to byte-code. "compiled" doesn't necessarily imply "compiled to
platform native binary code", you know.
Ok, this may look like a bit on the splitting hairs side. But may I
remind you that to run ever a .pyc file, you do need to have the
Python runtime (VM + quite a lot of libs) installed one way (normal
install) or another (packed in something that looks like an ordinary
"executable" - whatever this means for the target platform) ? OTHO,
it's true that a .pyc file is platform-independant - it just requires
the correct versions of quite a lot of platform-dependant binaries.
Wait... Isn't this code some kind of a "visible to the user and
programmer" "compatibilty layer" ?
Lie
That's beside the point, the point is about platform independentness
of the .py file. When I call Python is interpreted, I meant that the
CPU doesn't directly interpret python codes (in most Python
implementation).
> Ok, this may look like a bit on the splitting hairs side. But may I
> remind you that to run ever a .pyc file, you do need to have the
> Python runtime (VM + quite a lot of libs) installed one way (normal
> install) or another (packed in something that looks like an ordinary
> "executable" - whatever this means for the target platform) ? OTHO,
> it's true that a .pyc file is platform-independant - it just requires
> the correct versions of quite a lot of platform-dependant binaries.
> Wait... Isn't this code some kind of a "visible to the user and
> programmer" "compatibilty layer" ?
With the same bit on being on the splitting hair side: It's the same
with msvcrt in C or msvbvm60 in VB, programming language runtime is
invisible to the user, it's visible to the system administrator
(which, in many cases is also the user though). It is, however,
invisible to both the user and the programmers.
Dave Parker
> > Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> > motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python.
> On May 14, 8:30 pm, John Salerno <johnj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> That's truly disappointing.
I guess I could have stated that better. Flaming Thunder is a labor
of love for me. I've programmed in almost every language since
FORTRAN and Lisp, and Flaming Thunder is the language I've always
wished the others were.
For one example, I've always preferred compiled languages because
they're faster. So Flaming Thunder is compiled.
For another example, I've always preferred languages that are English-
like because it's easier to return to your code after several years
and still know what you were doing (and it's easier for someone else
to maintain your code).
For over 5 years I've been working on Flaming Thunder unpaid and on my
own, getting the back-end up and running. 8-by-8 shotgun cross
compilers written in assembly language, that can fit all of the
libraries for both the 32- and 64-bit versions of FreeBSD, Linux, Mac
OS X and Windows into a single executable file that's less than 180K,
aren't written overnight.
So now that I've released it, it's extremely gratifying that people
think it's cool enough to actually pay $19 for it. That gives me lots
of motivation (and buys enough time) for me to add features to it as
fast as possible.
To whit: you pointed out the awkwardness in Python of having to
declare a for-loop variable when you only wanted to loop a specific
number of times and didn't need the variable. Last week, Flaming
Thunder had the same awkwardness. If you wanted to loop 8 times:
for i from 1 to 8 do <statement>
you still had to use a variable (in this case, i). This week, I've
added two new for-loop variations that fix that awkwardness, and also
allow you to explicitly declare an infinite loop without having to
rely on idiomatic constructs such as while-true. Examples of the two
new variations (for-forever and for-expression-times):
Write "Fa".
For 8 times do write "-la".
For forever do
(
Write "Do you know the definition of insanity? ".
Read response.
).
Dave Parker
> Well, python will definitely never have a name that sounds like
> a slang term for happens after you get food poisioning at a
> Thai restaurant...
:)
Dave Parker
> Would it be valid to say:
>
> x = "concrete"
>
> or to say:
>
> if command (is) set to "quit"
>
> ??????
I like the idea of:
If command is set to "quit" ...
I've added it to my list of things to think about, and possibly
implement.
John Salerno
Dave Parker <davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> To whit: you pointed out the awkwardness in Python of having to
> declare a for-loop variable when you only wanted to loop a specific
> number of times and didn't need the variable.
Well, I wasn't so much trying to point out an awkwardness as I was asking if anyone really *found* it awkward. And of course, my question also raises the question of whether or not it's good programming to simply want to do something a certain number of times. I suppose that situation may come up, but I wonder if it can be implemented in a more significant way than simply doing something X number of times.
Dan Upton
<davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
>
> For another example, I've always preferred languages that are English-
> like because it's easier to return to your code after several years
> and still know what you were doing (and it's easier for someone else
> to maintain your code).
>
Unless of course you use reasonable variable names and have good
comments in your code. I don't think figuring out well-documented C
code would be any easier if it were in a more English-like
syntax--IMO, it's usually the understanding the interfaces or figuring
out what's going on in functions that makes reading someone else's
code tricky, not the difference between "x=" and "set x to."
MRAB
like:
Write "Fa".
Repeat 8 times:
Write "-la".
> For forever do
> (
> Write "Do you know the definition of insanity? ".
> Read response.
> ).
Repeat:
MRAB
> On May 14, 7:59 pm, John Salerno <johnj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be valid to say:
>
> > x = "concrete"
>
> > or to say:
>
> > if command (is) set to "quit"
>
> > ??????
>
> I like the idea of:
>
> If command is set to "quit" ...
>
If command is "quit" ...
Collin
> I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
> to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
> Flaming Thunder at http://www.flamingthunder.com/ , which has proven
> easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
> designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
Personally, FT is a bit meh to me. The way you issue your statements I
always think something is wrong, mainly because when I want to define,
say, x, in python I'd go:
x = "whatever"
Instantly noting that I defined x. While in Flaming Thunder I'd have to
type:
Set x to "whatever"
It just feels wrong.
Dave Parker
> like:
>
> Write "Fa".
> Repeat 8 times:
> Write "-la".
I actually kind of prefer that, too. Or
Repeat 8 times write "-la".
I'll think about it. Thank you for suggesting it.
> Read response.- Hide quoted text -
Dave Parker
>
> If command is "quit" ...
Hmmm. In Flaming Thunder, I'm using "is" (and "is an", "is a", etc)
for assigning and checking types. For example, to read data from a
file and check for errors:
Read data from "input.txt".
If data is an error then go to ...
Or when assigning a type to an identifier:
HarmonicMean is a function(x, y) ...
LoopCount is a variable ...
By using = only for equality and "is" only for types, the Flaming
Thunder compiler can detect when either is being used incorrectly
because the syntax for the two is incompatible. That avoids the man-
years of wasted debugging time spent on languages that accept
statements that are easily confused, yet syntactically valid (e.g. the
confusion between = and == in C if-statments, or the confusion between
= (equality) and "is" (identity) in Python).
> > implement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bruno Desthuilliers
>> Or just:
>>
>> If command is "quit" ...
>
> Hmmm. In Flaming Thunder, I'm using "is" (and "is an", "is a", etc)
> for assigning and checking types. For example, to read data from a
> file and check for errors:
>
> Read data from "input.txt".
> If data is an error then go to ...
Arf ! A goto !
> Or when assigning a type to an identifier:
>
> HarmonicMean is a function(x, y) ...
> LoopCount is a variable ...
>
> By using = only for equality and "is" only for types, the Flaming
> Thunder compiler can detect when either is being used incorrectly
> because the syntax for the two is incompatible. That avoids the man-
> years of wasted debugging time spent on languages that accept
> statements that are easily confused, yet syntactically valid (e.g. the
> confusion between = and == in C if-statments, or the confusion between
> = (equality) and "is" (identity) in Python).
>
Actually in Python the equality test is '==', not '='. And since
Python's types are objects - which is *definitively* a GoodThing(tm) in
an OOPL -, your point here is moot.
Also, you're overloading the meaning of 'is', which *is* (pun intented)
confusing too.
Dave Parker
> Personally, FT is a bit meh to me. The way you issue your statements I
> always think something is wrong, mainly because when I want to define,
> say, x, in python I'd go:
>
> x = "whatever"
>
> Instantly noting that I defined x. While in Flaming Thunder I'd have to
> type:
>
> Set x to "whatever"
>
> It just feels wrong.
Actually, it felt wrong to me when I first started working on Flaming
Thunder because I've been programming for decades and have had all of
the programming idioms burned into my brain.
But after getting input from children and teachers, etc, it started
feeling right.
For example, consider the two statements:
x = 8
x = 10
The reaction from most math teachers (and kids) was "one of those is
wrong because x can't equal 2 different things at the same time".
Many computer languages conflate "equality" with "assignment" and then
go to even more confusing measures to disambiguate them (such as using
== for equality, or := for assignment).
Plus, symbols are more confusing for people to learn about than
words. There are lots of people who are fluent in English, but
dislike math.
So, I opted for a simple, unambiguous, non-mathematical way of
expressing "assignment" which makes sense even to the non-
mathematically inclined:
Set x to 8.
That way, = can be reserved unambiguously and unconfusingly for the
mathematical notion of "equality" -- because it's in their math
classes that people learn what = means:
Set QuadraticEquation to a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0.
Dan Upton
<davep...@flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> For example, consider the two statements:
>
> x = 8
> x = 10
>
> The reaction from most math teachers (and kids) was "one of those is
> wrong because x can't equal 2 different things at the same time".
Sounds to me like the teacher is being difficult, and IIRC, you've
talked about having elementary school kids write in FT -- I don't
think asking "does this make sense to you" of elementary school kids
is necessarily the best metric for PL syntax/semantics.
> Many computer languages conflate "equality" with "assignment" and then
> go to even more confusing measures to disambiguate them (such as using
> == for equality, or := for assignment).
>
> Plus, symbols are more confusing for people to learn about than
> words. There are lots of people who are fluent in English, but
> dislike math.
If you can't do, or don't like, math, you probably shouldn't be
programming. If you don't have any symbolic reasoning skills, you're
largely limited to "Hello, World."
> That way, = can be reserved unambiguously and unconfusingly for the
> mathematical notion of "equality" -- because it's in their math
> classes that people learn what = means:
>
> Set QuadraticEquation to a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0.
You keep trotting out this quadratic equation example, but does FT
actually have any kind of useful equation solver in it? Or does it
just allow you to do something like
Set QuadraticEquation to a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0.
Set a to 1.
Set b to 0.
Set c to -25.
Set x to 5.
If QuadraticEquation is True then do ....