"Inform 7" is the wrong name
Dave Griffith
proposed Inform 7, I came to the conclusion that the differences are so
radical, that Inform 7 is not the best name for the language. Inform 6
and earlier have all been strongly influenced by C, Perl, and bits of
general object-orientedness; especially with later editions. The
closest relative to Inform 7 seems to be (and please don't throw things
at me for this) COBOL. This isn't to say that things resembling COBOL
are bad. I just don't think it's a good idea to discontinue the Inform
6 way of programming.
So I would like to propose coming up with a new name for Inform 7. When
it comes time to increment the major number for Inform 6, we'll call it
"Inform 8" to avoid confusion of "old Inform 7" and "new Inform 7".
--
David Griffith
dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu <-- Switch the 'b' and 'u'
d...@pobox.com
> So I would like to propose coming up with a new name for Inform 7. When
> it comes time to increment the major number for Inform 6, we'll call it
> "Inform 8" to avoid confusion of "old Inform 7" and "new Inform 7".
I don't think there will an major increment to Inform 6 that is in the
spirit of Inform 6. So I don't think we'll ever get a version number
clash.
Essentially Inform 7 is a major increment to Inform 6 that is of a
wholely different spirit.
drj
Adam Thornton
Dave Griffith <dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu> wrote:
>So I would like to propose coming up with a new name for Inform 7. When
>it comes time to increment the major number for Inform 6, we'll call it
>"Inform 8" to avoid confusion of "old Inform 7" and "new Inform 7".
You can propose all you want. You can even call for votes.
However, the decision is made by one person, and he has apparently
chosen "Inform 7." My preference would have been "Squoint" but Zarf
might have objected.
Adam
Andrew Plotkin
For a while (here I go revealing the Inner Temple Mysteries) it was
"Natural Inform". This is why the compiler binary is "ni". Then Graham
changed it to "Inform 7". I had the same problem with that name that
Dave describes above. But it's not going to change now.
I agree that I6 is unlikely to get another major version number.
It's not dead, but it's stabilized. People have proposed significant
new features (that would be worth of a 6.4 moniker) but I don't think
there's any notion of a change that would take it out of the "Inform
6" range.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Making a saint out of Reagan is sad. Making an idol out of Nixon ("If the
President does it then it's legal") is contemptible.
fel...@yahoo.com
a version number ("Inform" version 6.0), while
"Inform 7" is a name in itself.
Regards,
Felix
Andrew Plotkin
Perhaps it should have been "Inform VII" all along.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Just because you vote for the Republicans, doesn't mean they let you be one.
Jeff Nyman
news:dEVOh.4132$Kd3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> After taking a good look at the differences between Inform 6 and the
> proposed Inform 7, I came to the conclusion that the differences are so
> radical,
What does "so radical" mean? What's the threshold for something becoming a
"new" system, as opposed to just saying it's the latest update to an
existing system?
This is even more relevant to me when you look under the covers. Inform 7 is
pretty much all Inform 6, from what I can see, once everything gets
generated. In other words, what all that natural language gloss -- and the
rules and the relations and all that other stuff seems to get translated to
is an auto.inf file that is solely made up of Inform 6 code. You even use
direct Inform 6 code in Inform 7 in some cases. So, to me, Inform 7 does
seem to be the latest incarnation of the Inform system.
- Jeff
Nikos Chantziaras
> After taking a good look at the differences between Inform 6 and the
> proposed Inform 7, I came to the conclusion that the differences are so
> radical, that Inform 7 is not the best name for the language.
But it still was the best choice from a "marketing" point of view.
People tend to ignore unfamiliar names. "Inform" is well known. Not
choosing "Inform 7" would have been a terrible mistake likely to
undermine the system's acceptance.
Graham Nelson
> it comes time to increment the major number for Inform 6, we'll call it
> "Inform 8" to avoid confusion of "old Inform 7" and "new Inform 7".
I wonder if you've also written to President George H. W. Bush to
point out to him that his son is unfortunately named? After all,
George Bush is not the best name for a President who lacks the caution-
orientedness and savvy about world affairs that we associate with the
name. When it comes time for a Bush grandson to assume executive
office, we could then call him George H. W. Bush II, to avoid
confusion of "old George Bush" and "new George Bush".
Alternatively, of course, we could take the view that it's up to the
Bush family what they want to call their children?
Inform 7 is so called because, fundamentally, it is still Inform. Much
of what has changed is a logical progression of what came before: and
I7 is translated to I6 in the compilation chain in the same way that
most C++ code is compiled by being translated to C as an intermediate
step. I7 does not displace I6 - quite the contrary. I6 lives on inside
I7 rather the way Mac OS 9 lived on inside Mac OS X, but if anything
even more so: it isn't going to slowly wither away. And the aims are
the same.
As Zarf says, it was once called Natural Inform. During alpha-testing
Sonja Kesserich begged me to rename it, and though I give her credit
for this, I was tired of the name myself by then - people would either
find it natural or not, and shouldn't be told to. I retained NI as the
name of the component of I7 doing the textual compilation, because I7
is a composite program and one needs names to distinguish the
individual pieces. But Natural Inform is not officially the name of
anything. The language is not "the Natural Inform programming
language", whatever the Wikipedia page for Inform may say - I feel
it's a slippery slope correcting one's own Wikipedia pages, but if
anyone else would like to? - it's just Inform 7.
Hazard Suit
Am I the only one who thinks Inform 7 is well...cool...as it is? The
thing gets so much bashing. I like the name. I like the natural
language stuff, wether it IS natural language or not. Make programming
easier, (even fun sometimes.)
To make this post not completely unrelated, I agree that it's Mr.
Nelsons decision. Though I wouldn't mind Inform VII, just to relate to
the old-time adventure spirit (Space Quest I,II,III etc.) :-)
d...@pobox.com
wrote:
>
> Inform 7 is so called because, fundamentally, it is still Inform. Much
> of what has changed is a logical progression of what came before: and
> I7 is translated to I6 in the compilation chain in the same way that
> most C++ code is compiled by being translated to C as an intermediate
> step. I7 does not displace I6 - quite the contrary. I6 lives on inside
> I7 rather the way Mac OS 9 lived on inside Mac OS X, but if anything
> even more so: it isn't going to slowly wither away. And the aims are
> the same.
Yes, but your analogies with C/C++ and OS 9/OS X are both wrong. C++
is not compiled via C any more (use to be, but AT&T's cfront is no
longer the compiler of choice); OS 9 was implemented (by emulation) on
top of OS X, never vice-versa.
Windows / DOS might be a better example. That's why we can still run
DOS programs but we can't run ancient Mac software.
drj
ChicagoDave
> After taking a good look at the differences between Inform 6 and the
> proposed Inform 7, I came to the conclusion that the differences are so
> radical, that Inform 7 is not the best name for the language.
> OPEN CAN OF WORMS
You proceed, without caution, to open the can of worms.
Graham Nelson appears in your kitchen and scolds you on the inevitable
useless and lengthy discussion this will cause.
Several other people appear in your kitchen and begin to play with the
worms.
> PUT WORMS BACK IN CAN
As much as you'd like to, the worms are not all over the place, moving
in directions even you had not considered. You truly regret opening
this particular can of worms.
Eventually, the works overwhelm you....
You are dead. You may type RESTORE, RESTART, or QUIT.
You have scored a total of 0 points out of a total of VII.
David C.
John W. Kennedy
> On Mar 30, 11:32 am, "Graham Nelson" <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Inform 7 is so called because, fundamentally, it is still Inform. Much
>> of what has changed is a logical progression of what came before: and
>> I7 is translated to I6 in the compilation chain in the same way that
>> most C++ code is compiled by being translated to C as an intermediate
>> step. I7 does not displace I6 - quite the contrary. I6 lives on inside
>> I7 rather the way Mac OS 9 lived on inside Mac OS X, but if anything
>> even more so: it isn't going to slowly wither away. And the aims are
>> the same.
>
> Yes, but your analogies with C/C++ and OS 9/OS X are both wrong. C++
> is not compiled via C any more (use to be, but AT&T's cfront is no
> longer the compiler of choice); OS 9 was implemented (by emulation) on
> top of OS X, never vice-versa.
No, MacOS X Classic /is/ MacOS 9, run in a MacOS-X-provided virtual machine.
At least Inform's situation isn't as chaotic as:
Java 1.0
Java 1.1
Java 2 1.2
Java 2 1.3
Java 2 1.4
Java 5.0
Java 6.0
Anyway, "Inform 7" is now established, so there's very little point in
arguing with it.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Hazard Suit
ChicagoDave, I hold you responsible for a mouthful of tea spilled over
my keyboard. Because I laughed so hard. :-)
Dave Griffith
> On Mar 29, 3:50 pm, dgri...@cs.csbuak.edu (Dave Griffith) wrote:
>> After taking a good look at the differences between Inform 6 and the
>> proposed Inform 7, I came to the conclusion that the differences are so
>> radical, that Inform 7 is not the best name for the language.
>> OPEN CAN OF WORMS
> You proceed, without caution, to open the can of worms.
Urk.. I'm sorry I brought this up.
vaporware
Unfortunately that analogy is outdated too. The last version of
Windows built on DOS was Windows ME, part of a lineage that is now
dead. Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista run DOS programs through
emulation, more or less like OS X and Classic.
vw
Hazard Suit
game can.sav restored
You see a can of worm. It previously killed you.
>open can
Gues what...
*** You missed the point entirely***
Poster
> On Mar 29, 9:50 pm, dgri...@cs.csbuak.edu (Dave Griffith) wrote:
>> So I would like to propose coming up with a new name for Inform 7. When
>> it comes time to increment the major number for Inform 6, we'll call it
>> "Inform 8" to avoid confusion of "old Inform 7" and "new Inform 7".
>
> I wonder if you've also written to President George H. W. Bush to
> point out to him that his son is unfortunately named? After all,
> George Bush is not the best name for a President who lacks the caution-
> orientedness and savvy about world affairs that we associate with the
> name. When it comes time for a Bush grandson to assume executive
> office, we could then call him George H. W. Bush II, to avoid
> confusion of "old George Bush" and "new George Bush".
Political comparisons like this one are what make me distrustful of the
so-called "IF community". Hey guys? If you want to grow the community,
how about leaving your political hazing at the door?
-- Poster
www.intaligo.com Building, INFORM, Seasons (upcoming!)
ChicagoDave
> Political comparisons like this one are what make me distrustful of the
> so-called "IF community". Hey guys? If you want to grow the community,
> how about leaving your political hazing at the door?
If more people wove political discourse into their daily lives, we
might not be in the mess we're in. Too many people ignore politics and
say, "it's all broken, I don't vote, I don't care" and that's more of
a problem than Graham or anyone else making political commentary.
Besides, the comment was dead on.
David C.
Aris Katsaris
> "Dave Griffith" <dgri...@cs.csbuak.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:dEVOh.4132$Kd3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > After taking a good look at the differences between Inform 6 and the
> > proposed Inform 7, I came to the conclusion that the differences are so
> > radical,
>
> What does "so radical" mean? What's the threshold for something becoming a
> "new" system, as opposed to just saying it's the latest update to an
> existing system?
An exact threshold may not be not be easy to find, but that doesn't
mean we can't
have some criteria. Inform 7 source code looks *nothing* like Inform 6
source code.
No part of Inform 7 is understandable by Inform 6 compilers
whatsoever.
> This is even more relevant to me when you look under the covers. Inform 7 is
> pretty much all Inform 6, from what I can see, once everything gets
> generated.
That's just silly. You may just as well say that it all eventually
gets generated to 0
and 1s. Let's talk about how programs look when being WRITTEN, not
once
they're "generated".
Indeed, the very fact that Inform 7 generates itself into Inform 6
ought show you
that these are two different languages, the one isn't an earlier
version of the other
-- they coexist in time. After all Inform 6 didn't have to generate
Inform 5 code, and
Inform 5 didn't have to generate Inform 4 code.
Inform 7 is to Inform 6, what Inform 6 is to z-machine code instead.
> You even use
> direct Inform 6 code in Inform 7 in some cases.
Which is interjected into Inform 7 as a foreign body to be used as
rarely as possible,
a discouraged practice.
> So, to me, Inform 7 does
> seem to be the latest incarnation of the Inform system.
I think I'll go with the DOS/Windows analogy someone else used. To say
Inform 7 is the next
version of Inform 6, is like saying that Windows is the next version
of MSDOS... The former
bases itself on the latter, but they look nothing alike in use or
practice. The very fact that
Windows 95 had to use MSDOS, shows us that the one isn't a later
version of the other.
-Aris Katsaris
Dave Griffith
It's pretty clear I rubbed Graham the wrong way. Nonetheless, I don't
think the comparison was warranted or accurate. I'm getting the
impression that Inform6 is being abandoned. I don't want to see it
succumb to bitrot and obscurity.
There's got to be someone here who has programmed in COBOL before. Am I
the only one who noticed its similarity to Inform7?
Graham Nelson
> It's pretty clear I rubbed Graham the wrong way.
Not in the least.
> I'm getting the
> impression that Inform6 is being abandoned.
Not in the least!
> There's got to be someone here who has programmed in COBOL before. Am I
> the only one who noticed its similarity to Inform7?
Not - sorry. I commented on this a little in the paper about the
development of I7. I think the salient thing about COBOL is not its
clunkiness, old-fashionedness, verbosity, etc., all of which are
beyond doubt: it's that it is still, in 2007, surprisingly extensively
used, often with programs up to four decades old, and that it has in
general produced programs capable of maintenance long after the
original programmers have left the stage - a test not many languages
pass.
Depresiv
> the only one who noticed its similarity to Inform7?
I program in Cobol for a living (Cobol400, the Cobol dialect of AS/
400), and i don't think they're that similar. The filosofy of the two
languages is completely different. Cobol tries to give a "natural
feel" to the comunication with a computer (ADD 3 TO VAR instead of VAR
= VAR + 3), but still the instructions are what you expect of a common
"procedural" programming language: mathematical operations with
variables, conditions, procedure calls and so on. It has more
similarities in its behavior with C than with Inform 7.
In short, I don't know what has in common this:
perform varying i from 99 by -1 until i = 1
move spaces to buffer bb1
move 1 to j
divide i by 10 giving k remainder l
string bb8(k + 1) delimited space into bb1 pointer j
if j > 1
then move bb7(l + 1) to bb1(j + 1:)
else move bb7(i + 1) to bb1
end-if
move 1 to j
string bb1 ' ' bb2 ' ' bb3 delimited ' '
into buffer pointer j
if i < 99
move '!' to buffer(j:)
display bb4 buffer
display ' '
end-if
string ', ' bb1 ' ' bb2 '!'
delimited ' ' into buffer pointer j
display function upper-case(buffer(1:1)) buffer(2:)
end-perform
with this:
The Minivan is a room. The Open Road is outside from the Minivan. Pete
is a man in the Minivan. "Pete [if the player has been in the Minivan
for 3 turns]is starting to look bored[otherwise]is playing with his
travel activity book[end if]."
Every turn:
if the player has been in the Minivan for 5 turns, say "'Are we there
[if saying no]now?'[otherwise]yet?' asks Pete.[end if]"
Instead of saying no:
say "'Oh,' says Pete. There is a blessed, momentary silence."
Instead of going to the Open Road:
say "You leap to your death.";
end the game in death.
Jeff Nyman
news:1175395993.6...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> That's just silly. You may just as well say that it all eventually
> gets generated to 0
> and 1s. Let's talk about how programs look when being WRITTEN, not
> once
> they're "generated".
If you wish to, feel free. How things are written doesn't matter much to me
because I'm okay with language evolution in terms of its structure.
Personally, I'm not getting all that worked up about it because, ultimately,
I really don't care about its name. I didn't design the system. It's not my
choice. I'm happy with it being called Inform 7 because, to me, it's clearly
a successor to the existing Inform system. Others may differ with that
viewpoint and, if so, I wish them the best of luck debating what the actual
name of the system should have been.
- Jeff
ChicagoDave
Sorry Dave. I was just commenting on the Bishism. I don't think your
Inform 7 renaming comment was _that_ big of a deal and think Graham
was joking.
David C.
Aris Katsaris
>
> I'm happy with it being called Inform 7 because, to me, it's clearly
> a successor to the existing Inform system.
How can it be a complete successor to Inform 6, when it coexists with
Inform 6, being generated into it? That has been my point. It's like
saying
that Inform 6 is a successor of z-machine code.
-Aris Katsaris
Andrew Plotkin
> On Apr 1, 2:38 pm, "Jeff Nyman" <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm happy with it being called Inform 7 because, to me, it's clearly
> > a successor to the existing Inform system.
>
> How can it be a complete successor to Inform 6, when it coexists with
> Inform 6, being generated into it?
Because Inform 6 the design system is not Inform 6 the software
component.
The language C *was*, in important ways, the successor to assembly.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're innocent.
Dave Griffith
>> There's got to be someone here who has programmed in COBOL before. Am I
>> the only one who noticed its similarity to Inform7?
> I program in Cobol for a living (Cobol400, the Cobol dialect of AS/
> 400), and i don't think they're that similar. The filosofy of the two
> languages is completely different. Cobol tries to give a "natural
> feel" to the comunication with a computer (ADD 3 TO VAR instead of VAR
> = VAR + 3), but still the instructions are what you expect of a common
> "procedural" programming language: mathematical operations with
> variables, conditions, procedure calls and so on. It has more
> similarities in its behavior with C than with Inform 7.
Well, my experiences with COBOL is from an IBM s/370 of some sort and
just a couple classes. My impression of similarity came from that
attempt to create a "natural feel".
Aris Katsaris
> Here, Aris Katsaris <katsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How can it be a complete successor to Inform 6, when it coexists with
> > Inform 6, being generated into it?
>
> Because Inform 6 the design system is not Inform 6 the software
> component.
>
> The language C *was*, in important ways, the successor to assembly.
But they had the good sense not to call it "Assembly 2" :-)
Aris Katsaris
Cassy Palop
Pointless. Sorry.
Richard Bos
> Here, Aris Katsaris <kats...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 2:38 pm, "Jeff Nyman" <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm happy with it being called Inform 7 because, to me, it's clearly
> > > a successor to the existing Inform system.
> >
> > How can it be a complete successor to Inform 6, when it coexists with
> > Inform 6, being generated into it?
>
> Because Inform 6 the design system is not Inform 6 the software
> component.
>
> The language C *was*, in important ways, the successor to assembly.
dmr disagrees: <http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html>. C was
the successor to new B, and _that_ was the successor for B, which
couldn't compete with assembly.
Richard
d...@pobox.com
> Andrew Plotkin <erkyr...@eblong.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 2:38 pm, "Jeff Nyman" <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm happy with it being called Inform 7 because, to me, it's clearly
> > > > a successor to the existing Inform system.
>
> > > How can it be a complete successor to Inform 6, when it coexists with
> > > Inform 6, being generated into it?
>
> > Because Inform 6 the design system is not Inform 6 the software
> > component.
>
> > The language C *was*, in important ways, the successor to assembly.
>
> dmr disagrees: <http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html>. C was
> the successor to new B, and _that_ was the successor for B, which
> couldn't compete with assembly.
True, but C was the successor to assembly in the sense that after C
came about, system programmers (writing OSes and compilers and tape-
editors) began using C rather than, the traditional, assembly.
Writing on OS in something other than assembly was actually quite a
novel idea at the time (but not so novel that Multics hadn't done it a
bit earlier).
drj
Greg Comeau
Probably it is a better example, but C++ "compiling" to C is not
completely dead even though cfront itself may be. For instance,
most ports of Comeau C++ work this way. Unlike so-called native
compilers, it does so for the full core language of C++98, C++03,
and even many C++oxisms.
--
Greg Comeau / 20 years of Comeauity! Intel Mac Port now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?
d...@pobox.com
> In article <1175259692.996309.285...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> <d...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 30, 11:32 am, "Graham Nelson" <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> Inform 7 is so called because, fundamentally, it is still Inform. Much
> >> of what has changed is a logical progression of what came before: and
> >> I7 is translated to I6 in the compilation chain in the same way that
> >> most C++ code is compiled by being translated to C as an intermediate
> >> step. I7 does not displace I6 - quite the contrary. I6 lives on inside
> >> I7 rather the way Mac OS 9 lived on inside Mac OS X, but if anything
> >> even more so: it isn't going to slowly wither away. And the aims are
> >> the same.
>
> >Yes, but your analogies with C/C++ and OS 9/OS X are both wrong. C++
> >is not compiled via C any more (use to be, but AT&T's cfront is no
> >longer the compiler of choice); OS 9 was implemented (by emulation) on
> >top of OS X, never vice-versa.
>
> >Windows / DOS might be a better example. That's why we can still run
> >DOS programs but we can't run ancient Mac software.
>
> Probably it is a better example, but C++ "compiling" to C is not
> completely dead even though cfront itself may be. For instance,
> most ports of Comeau C++ work this way.
Noted.
drj
Default User
> Probably it is a better example, but C++ "compiling" to C is not
> completely dead even though cfront itself may be. For instance,
> most ports of Comeau C++ work this way. Unlike so-called native
> compilers, it does so for the full core language of C++98, C++03,
> and even many C++oxisms.
Ha. Here I was going to post this same thing, but Greg beats me to it.
I didn't even know you read this group.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Jeff Houck
James Jolley
dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu says...
Yes, it's a bit similar but as a blind user who once did try the
language, I7 is less fussy about formatting, a good thing I feel.
>
--
All the best
-James-
----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms at!
----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----