neos

[Mr Flibble]

Hi!

Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
language is progressing. Initial language implementations will be Ada,
JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.

/Flibble

--
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/23/2019 7:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be Ada,
> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.

I like and use some of those languages. Well, if you really get some
free time, please try to give C a chance?

[Cholo Lennon]

On 2/24/19 12:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be Ada,
> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>

It sounds interesting. Could you describe your compiler? Is something
similar, for example, to clang/LLVM? What architecture/platform are you
going to support?

Regards

--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[Ian Collins]

On 24/02/2019 16:16, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
> language is progressing. Initial language implementations will be Ada,
> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.

It's not April first yet...

--
Ian.

[Melzzzzz]

Perhaps he travels in time?
>


--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Mr Flibble]

The compiler is language agnostic (i.e. contains no C++ code specific to
any one programming language). A language schema file that describes the
syntax and semantics of the language is an input to the compiler; the
format of the schema file is Relaxed JSON so is very easy to write.

The target of the compiler is my custom bytecode VM which will have a JIT.

My main project "neoGFX" (an app/game creation framework) will use neos as
its scripting engine. The ability of my framework to be able to run
scripts written in your favourite programming language is a unique selling
point I think.

[Mr Flibble]

I am being quite serious Ian and neos is a serious project:

https://github.com/i42output/neos

[Chris Vine]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 11:20:50 +0000
Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 04:47, Cholo Lennon wrote:
> > On 2/24/19 12:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
> >> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be Ada,
> >> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
> >>
> >
> > It sounds interesting. Could you describe your compiler? Is something
> > similar, for example, to clang/LLVM? What architecture/platform are you
> > going to support?
>
> The compiler is language agnostic (i.e. contains no C++ code specific to
> any one programming language). A language schema file that describes the
> syntax and semantics of the language is an input to the compiler; the
> format of the schema file is Relaxed JSON so is very easy to write.
>
> The target of the compiler is my custom bytecode VM which will have a JIT.
>
> My main project "neoGFX" (an app/game creation framework) will use neos as
> its scripting engine. The ability of my framework to be able to run
> scripts written in your favourite programming language is a unique selling
> point I think.

Not necessarily unique. You might be interested in GNU guile, whose VM
(and compiler) is intended to be usable with different compiler front
ends. However, at present front ends are only available for scheme,
early ECMAscript (I think most of ECMAscript 3) and emacs lisp. A lua
front-end is said to be "underway" but I wouldn't stake too much on
it, as ambition often over-reaches resources. The compiler for the
development version of guile (version 2.9.1) does JITing from bytecode
to native code[1] and the code it emits is reasonably fast - about 10
times slower than C and considerably faster than python. The main
author of that VM/compiler is or was also involved professionally in v8
and I believe also firefox, so he does know about the subject.

Yours looks even more ambitious. I wish you well with it.

[1]
https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/master/guile.html/Just_002dIn_002dTime-Native-Code.html

[bart...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:21:00 UTC, Mr Flibble wrote:

> My main project "neoGFX" (an app/game creation framework) will use neos as
> its scripting engine. The ability of my framework to be able to run
> scripts written in your favourite programming language is a unique selling
> point I think.

Actually in that language or just using its syntax?

Because you mention Ada and Python among others. Ada compilers I'd heard can take many man years to write. While Python is another huge language, of which half the functionality depends on standard libraries likely written in C.

Another problem is that someone using what looks like Python might expect to be able to install and deploy any of tens of thousands of libraries, all with their own special requirements.

So if some are saying such a project appears to be over-ambitious, then I would agree. Especially if there will be the ability to write projects in mixed languages (how will Python call a function in Ada; how will Ada call a function in Javascript?).

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/02/2019 13:35, bart...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:21:00 UTC, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> My main project "neoGFX" (an app/game creation framework) will use neos as
>> its scripting engine. The ability of my framework to be able to run
>> scripts written in your favourite programming language is a unique selling
>> point I think.
>
> Actually in that language or just using its syntax?

The language.

>
> Because you mention Ada and Python among others. Ada compilers I'd heard can take many man years to write. While Python is another huge language, of which half the functionality depends on standard libraries likely written in C.

The core languages will be implemented; what % of standard libraries I
provide will depend on time available.

>
> Another problem is that someone using what looks like Python might expect to be able to install and deploy any of tens of thousands of libraries, all with their own special requirements.
>
> So if some are saying such a project appears to be over-ambitious, then I would agree. Especially if there will be the ability to write projects in mixed languages (how will Python call a function in Ada; how will Ada call a function in Javascript?).

Python won't be calling a function in Ada because the Python and the Ada
no longer exist after compilation: they are transformed into a language
agnostic intermediate form.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <c7vcE.37718$5U6....@fx03.fr7>,

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24/02/2019 05:08, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 24/02/2019 16:16, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
>>> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be Ada,
>>> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>>
>> It's not April first yet...
>
>I am being quite serious Ian and neos is a serious project:

I've thought since I first saw this thread that this is an elaborate
trolling of RCH (*).

(*) Who also is planning to singlehandedly, all by himself, re-invent the
past 70 years of computing ecosystem.

P.S. Isn't your project essentially the same general idea as MS's .NET?

--
The people who were, are, and always will be, wrong about everything, are still
calling *us* "libtards"...

(John Fugelsang)

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/02/2019 14:26, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <c7vcE.37718$5U6....@fx03.fr7>,
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2019 05:08, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2019 16:16, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming

>>>> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be Ada,

>>>> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>>>
>>> It's not April first yet...
>>
>> I am being quite serious Ian and neos is a serious project:
>
> I've thought since I first saw this thread that this is an elaborate
> trolling of RCH (*).
>
> (*) Who also is planning to singlehandedly, all by himself, re-invent the
> past 70 years of computing ecosystem.
>
> P.S. Isn't your project essentially the same general idea as MS's .NET?

Kind of: the main difference being that I don't have to recompile any
binaries to support a new language as long as the semantic concepts are
already available: all that is required is a new language schema file
describing the language. If there are any new semantic concepts required
then they can be added with a plugin using neos's plugin architecture.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 24.02.2019 12:20, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 04:47, Cholo Lennon wrote:
>> On 2/24/19 12:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
>>> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be
>>> Ada, JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>>>
>>
>> It sounds interesting. Could you describe your compiler? Is something
>> similar, for example, to clang/LLVM? What architecture/platform are
>> you going to support?
>
> The compiler is language agnostic (i.e. contains no C++ code specific to
> any one programming language). A language schema file that describes the
> syntax and semantics of the language is an input to the compiler; the
> format of the schema file is Relaxed JSON so is very easy to write.
>
> The target of the compiler is my custom bytecode VM which will have a JIT.

I detect an extreme /internal feature/ creep here, which may stand in
the way of the community ever getting a finished NeoGFX (whatever).

Been there, done that.

Containing feature creep = very important. May feel like cutting one's
foot or arm off, why would one do that? But actually it's a question of
curbing an effort to /grow/ a new arm or foot, that one envisions would
simplify other tasks considerably; looked at that way it's silly.

> My main project "neoGFX" (an app/game creation framework) will use neos
> as its scripting engine. The ability of my framework to be able to run
> scripts written in your favourite programming language is a unique
> selling point I think.

Cheers!,

- Alf

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/02/2019 15:11, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> On 24.02.2019 12:20, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 24/02/2019 04:47, Cholo Lennon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/19 12:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
>>>> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be
>>>> Ada, JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds interesting. Could you describe your compiler? Is something
>>> similar, for example, to clang/LLVM? What architecture/platform are you
>>> going to support?
>>
>> The compiler is language agnostic (i.e. contains no C++ code specific to
>> any one programming language). A language schema file that describes the
>> syntax and semantics of the language is an input to the compiler; the
>> format of the schema file is Relaxed JSON so is very easy to write.
>>
>> The target of the compiler is my custom bytecode VM which will have a JIT.
>
> I detect an extreme /internal feature/ creep here, which may stand in the
> way of the community ever getting a finished NeoGFX (whatever).

There is no feature creep going on: it has always been the intention that
neoGFX will have a scripting engine but it makes sense to make the engine
a separate project.

>
> Been there, done that.

I am not.

>
> Containing feature creep = very important. May feel like cutting one's
> foot or arm off, why would one do that? But actually it's a question of
> curbing an effort to /grow/ a new arm or foot, that one envisions would
> simplify other tasks considerably; looked at that way it's silly.

Your analogy doesn't hold because there is no feature creep.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

"Ravioli.

"Ravioli.

"Ravioli."

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/02/2019 15:44, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> "Ravioli.
>
> "Ravioli.
>
> "Ravioli."

I haven't seen any of your bullshit religious spam in the last month or
so: well done, keep it up! :)

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <FzycE.4105$yI7....@fx06.fr7>,
Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
...

>> simplify other tasks considerably; looked at that way it's silly.
>
>Your analogy doesn't hold because there is no feature creep.

You are really, really, really beginning to sound like your nemesis.

They say that all women become their mothers.
Here, you are going to become, well, you know...

--

"If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist."

(Linda Smith on "10 Funniest Londoners", TimeOut, 23rd June, 2005.)

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/02/2019 16:11, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <FzycE.4105$yI7....@fx06.fr7>,
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
>>> simplify other tasks considerably; looked at that way it's silly.
>>
>> Your analogy doesn't hold because there is no feature creep.
>
> You are really, really, really beginning to sound like your nemesis.
>
> They say that all women become their mothers.
> Here, you are going to become, well, you know...

Not sure how you made that jump mate. My projects are serious whist RCH's
projects are unserious religiously motivated works of the deluded that
nobody would want to use for that reason.

[Daniel]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:11:24 AM UTC-5, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> I detect an extreme /internal feature/ creep here, which may stand in
> the way of the community ever getting a finished NeoGFX
>

Just so, but when you write software for free, you can do anything that you
want.

Daniel

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <5b0ce5f0-c8fd-428c...@googlegroups.com>,

And deliver (or not) it whenever/however you want.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RightWingMedia

[Bart]

On 24/02/2019 14:08, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 13:35, bart...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:21:00 UTC, Mr Flibble  wrote:
>>
>>> My main project "neoGFX" (an app/game creation framework) will use
>>> neos as
>>> its scripting engine. The ability of my framework to be able to run
>>> scripts written in your favourite programming language is a unique
>>> selling
>>> point I think.
>>
>> Actually in that language or just using its syntax?
>
> The language.
>
>>
>> Because you mention Ada and Python among others. Ada compilers I'd
>> heard can take many man years to write. While Python is another huge
>> language, of which half the functionality depends on standard
>> libraries likely written in C.
>
> The core languages will be implemented; what % of standard libraries I
> provide will depend on time available.

I'm sorry, but you did seem to just by-the-by state your intention to
create compilers for mainstream languages such as Ada, Python,
Javascript and even C, in the same way someone might say they're going
out to buy milk, bread, and maybe some cheese.

Even if it is only the front-ends of those compilers. I assumed you
would be doing this single-handedly, and within a shortish time-scale
(not decades in other words).

Going back to the OP, you also say this is a single universal compiler
for any language.

You make writing a mere single-language compiler sound so trivial. No
wonder some people are sceptical.

>>
>> Another problem is that someone using what looks like Python might
>> expect to be able to install and deploy any of tens of thousands of
>> libraries, all with their own special requirements.
>>
>> So if some are saying such a project appears to be over-ambitious,
>> then I would agree. Especially if there will be the ability to write
>> projects in mixed languages (how will Python call a function in Ada;
>> how will Ada call a function in Javascript?).

> Python won't be calling a function in Ada because the Python and the Ada
> no longer exist after compilation: they are transformed into a language
> agnostic intermediate form.

But the user will be coding in Python and Ada, so they would the problem
of how cross-language interfaces will work. (Can they mix languages
within the same source file? Rick intends to do that.)

Python is highly dynamic. Ada is highly static, which would make the VM
design interesting. Actually, Python is so dynamic that you might not
even know what the source code is until runtime. (Eg. using exec() and
eval(), or using conditional 'import' dependent on some runtime expression.)

Anyway, good luck.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <4ABcE.17217$701....@fx04.am4>, Bart <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
...

>Python is highly dynamic. Ada is highly static, which would make the VM
>design interesting. Actually, Python is so dynamic that you might not
>even know what the source code is until runtime. (Eg. using exec() and
>eval(), or using conditional 'import' dependent on some runtime expression.)
>
>Anyway, good luck.

Indeed. You know, it just occurred to me that Leigh and Rick should merge
their projects. A single, unified project would have a rather better
chance of coming to fruition than either one individually.

Of course, 2*.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% is still,
effecitvely, zero.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:

http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Infallibility

[Daniel]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 1:38:28 PM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <5b0ce5f0-c8fd-428c...@googlegroups.com>,

> Daniel wrote:
> >>
> >when you write software for free, you can do anything that you
> >want.
>
> And deliver (or not) it whenever/however you want.
>

Indeed, it is in the nature of the thing. But it is churlish to complain
that Mr Flibble directs his efforts in one way but not another, they are
his efforts, and his alone.

Daniel

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 15:44, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > "Ravioli.
> > "Ravioli.
> > "Ravioli."
>
> I haven't seen any of your bullshit religious spam in the last month or
> so: well done, keep it up! :)

Can't say the same for you:

> “You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais
>
> “I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
> doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
> Ricky Gervais
>
> "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
> confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
> will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
> "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
> "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
> that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
> "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
> world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

You've never understood. I don't post just to post. I post as a
course of my life. Where I am, there I am living for Jesus, and
teaching people the same. This comes spontaneously at times, or
in reaction to other input at other times.

The same reply I gave to this person is the same reason homosex-
uality exists in people. People are not "born gay," but they do
legitimately feel as though they have gay tendencies. However,
those tendencies are not from their own life, but rather the evil
spirit life induced upon your life. It is a purpose at deception
designed to keep you from coming to Jesus, repenting, asking for-
giveness for your sin. Any person seeking to resist the false-
ness and seek the truth will be known by God to be doing this,
and God Himself will step into that person's life an intervene on
their behalf, making the things which are impossible for the in-
dividual to accomplish on his/her own to be possible through His
help:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/PD4wE-_AS7U/s1WZY2WPAQAJ

You don't see it because you won't see it. You love your sin,
and you are content to go forward living as you have lived. You
do not seek the truth, which is why it eludes you.

You could be set free today, Leigh, and have your future secure
in Heaven after you leave this world on whatever day that is.

You will realize this in time, either here on this Earth where it
will be good for you, or in the afterlife where it will be bad
for you. I hope it's the former. I want you to have a real future
and not consume eternity here with sinful pleasures of the flesh.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/02/2019 18:51, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <4ABcE.17217$701....@fx04.am4>, Bart <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Python is highly dynamic. Ada is highly static, which would make the VM
>> design interesting. Actually, Python is so dynamic that you might not
>> even know what the source code is until runtime. (Eg. using exec() and
>> eval(), or using conditional 'import' dependent on some runtime expression.)
>>
>> Anyway, good luck.
>
> Indeed. You know, it just occurred to me that Leigh and Rick should merge
> their projects. A single, unified project would have a rather better
> chance of coming to fruition than either one individually.
>
> Of course, 2*.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% is still,
> effecitvely, zero.

You made two mistakes there:
1) you compared apples with oranges: my projects are serious whilst
Hodgin's are toy;
2) you are underestimating my technical ability.

Mistake (1) makes you look like a fucktard whilst (2) makes you look like
an ignorant cockwomble.

[Mr Flibble]

Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
is, given (A) also false.

/Flibble

--

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 3:57:34 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 20:43, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 24/02/2019 15:44, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> "Ravioli.
> >>> "Ravioli.
> >>> "Ravioli."
> >>

> >> I haven't seen any of your .. religious spam in the last month or

"Ravioli.

"Ravioli...

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <a673e2bf-75bf-4853...@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>"Ravioli.
>
>"Ravioli...
>
>"Ravioli."

Lasagne

Lasagne

Lasagne
--
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from using Leviticus
to defend homophobia and Exodus to plaster the Ten Commandments on
every school and courthouse to claim that the Old Testament is merely
"ancient laws" that "only applies to Jews".

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 4:13:24 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> "Ravioli.

> "Ravioli...
> "Ravioli."

My personal favorite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU8MKxTJIKI

I especially liked the glasses maneuver. She made it very convinc-
ing. Please pass along my appreciate for her unique talent to
make saying the word "ravioli" in repetition enjoyable to watch.
She really did make me smile.

All four takes were quite good, with each offering their own take
on how to repeat the word "ravioli" three times on an otherwise un-
marked skit. Was it a comedy routine? Or maybe it was an AI actor
generated by a neoGFX gaming engine? If so, my hat goes off to you,
sir. She looked completely realistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmXYohCQvHI

On this one she wasn't quite ready though. Had to get the hair
just right it seems. It might be an outtake for my favorite one
at the top above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bywQZFV_n0

This one is the most flat of the lot ... but still good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bymMOjA_-Gk

I like it, Leigh. If you're taking requests, can you do one on
pizza? Or would it be too few syllables for a full production
script?

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 4:18:29 PM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from using Leviticus
> to defend homophobia and Exodus to plaster the Ten Commandments on
> every school and courthouse to claim that the Old Testament is merely
> "ancient laws" that "only applies to Jews".

Homosexuality is decried in the New Testament as a sin that keeps one
out of the Kingdom of Heaven as well:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=KJV;NIV

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 -- Or do you not know that wrongdoers will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers NOR MEN WHO HAVE
SEX WITH MEN[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Footnote [a]: 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with
men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active
participants in homosexual acts [meaning those who are engaging
in homosexual acts, as well as those who approve of them].

Ignorance keeps you in chains, Kenny. The truth will MAKE you free.

If you want to know the truth ... it is there. The Bible is not a
joke. What God teaches us is not incorrect, hurtful, harmful, re-
strictive in the conventional sense, nor anything negative. It is
ALL for the fullest benefit of the creation of man, both here in
this temporary life, and for our life outside of time after we leave
this finite world.

God gave us the Law of Moses to keep us occupied, so we would not
sin. It was never intended to save us. It's the same reason God
did not give us high technology for the first 5,800 years of this
world's existence. Look how depraved our societies have become
since our labor burden has decreased.

Open your eyes, Kenny. You'll see the truth ... if you seek it.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

As I said, the languages disappear after compilation so there is no need
for "cross-language interfaces".

>
> Python is highly dynamic. Ada is highly static, which would make the VM
> design interesting. Actually, Python is so dynamic that you might not even
> know what the source code is until runtime. (Eg. using exec() and eval(),
> or using conditional 'import' dependent on some runtime expression.)

Just because you cannot make the mental leap needed to be able to
implement reflection in a language agnostic way it doesn't mean that I cannot.

> Anyway, good luck.

Thanks. :)

[Mr Flibble]

Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
is, given (A) also false.

/Flibble

--

[Rick C. Hodgin]

If your belief is wrong, it will cost you your eternal soul, Leigh.
Investigate, and don't ignore the warning. It doesn't come from me.
It comes from men as from 3,500 to 2,000 years ago, writing YOU a
personal message from God about your soul. You owe the message your
consideration, not scorn.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

PS -- Your ravioli videos really did make me smile. She has a
pleasing accent and a very happy face.

PPS -- I wish you well on your projects. I look forward to seeing
your great success.

[Mr Flibble]

[David Brown]

On 24/02/2019 16:16, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 15:11, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> On 24.02.2019 12:20, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 24/02/2019 04:47, Cholo Lennon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/19 12:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
>>>>> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be
>>>>> Ada, JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It sounds interesting. Could you describe your compiler? Is
>>>> something similar, for example, to clang/LLVM? What
>>>> architecture/platform are you going to support?
>>>
>>> The compiler is language agnostic (i.e. contains no C++ code specific
>>> to any one programming language). A language schema file that
>>> describes the syntax and semantics of the language is an input to the
>>> compiler; the format of the schema file is Relaxed JSON so is very
>>> easy to write.
>>>
>>> The target of the compiler is my custom bytecode VM which will have a
>>> JIT.
>>
>> I detect an extreme /internal feature/ creep here, which may stand in
>> the way of the community ever getting a finished NeoGFX (whatever).
>
> There is no feature creep going on: it has always been the intention
> that neoGFX will have a scripting engine but it makes sense to make the
> engine a separate project.
>

I must admit I assumed your first post here was a parody of Rick. The
suspicious part is that you did not include any pseudo-religious waffle.
But the "I am going to re-invent half the computing world solely
because it will be /my/ version" part was there, along with a bold claim
that you alone would handle a project that would normally be estimated
at hundreds of man-years of effort.


Including a scripting engine in neoGFX makes sense. Trying to make a
"universal compiler" that supports Ada, JavaScript, Python, Lua, Forth
and maybe C - that makes far, far less sense. The key questions you
have to ask yourself are:

1. Who is going to use it?
2. Why are they going to choose this system rather than another one?
3. Why are they going to choose this language rather than a different one?
4. This work will take time and effort - is it the most important use of
your time and effort? (Note - "it's fun" and "I want to do it" are
perfectly good reasons, if you are economically free to make the choice.)


I think it is reasonable to say right at the start that there are
precisely /zero/ Forth or Ada programmers who would be interesting it
using those languages along with neoGFX. And there will be precisely
/zero/ users of neoGFX who would be interested in learning Ada or Forth
in order to use them there.

People might well be interested in using Python with neoGFX (that would
interest me). But almost certainly what they will want is Python
bindings for neoGFX - they would want to write their software in Python
and use neoGFX for the gui, just as they do today with TKinter, wxPython
or QT for Python. I can't imagine that anyone would want to make, say,
a C++ application with neoGFX and attach Python as a scripting language.

Lua and JavaScript, on the other hand, are perfect candidates. Both are
very popular as scripting languages for this sort of thing - and in both
cases you can use existing projects to provide the interpreter, bytecode
and VM.

Surely it would make most sense to integrate an existing JavaScript or
Lua system into neoGFX, and then build out from there?

You may have grand overall plans, and thus this is not "feature creep" -
but it is still wise to take smaller steps at a time.

[leigh.v....@googlemail.com]

Hi David!

The substantive urgency with which you genuflect toward the status quo and existing paradigms just strengthens my belief that I am on the right track. For example the very thought of pulling in Chrome/V8 as a dependency and having to interface with that shite in order to support just one scripting language (JavaScript) couldn't be any more egregious in my mind.

/Leigh/Flibble

[Queequeg]

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:

> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
> language is progressing. Initial language implementations will be Ada,
> JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.

Show effects, not promises.

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[leigh.v....@googlemail.com]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 10:00:40 AM UTC, Queequeg wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
> > language is progressing. Initial language implementations will be Ada,
> > JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>
> Show effects, not promises.

I hope to get "Hello, world!" working in Ada by next weekend .. screenshots will be provided.

/Leigh/Flibble

[David Brown]

I'm sorry to hear that - as it makes you sound more fanatical, and more
like Rick, and will convince others that you are on the /wrong/ track.
This is a sad day for neoGFX - it looks like a very nice and innovative
toolkit, and it would be a shame to spoil it by such a dramatic loss of
focus.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to invent a better wheel. But there
/is/ something wrong with trying to re-invent everything at once rather
than doing it in bits. Take existing parts, and use them first to build
your complete system. Then see what parts are most in need of
replacement or re-writes, and tackle them at that point.

> For example the very thought of pulling in Chrome/V8
> as a dependency and having to interface with that shite in order to
> support just one scripting language (JavaScript) couldn't be any more
> egregious in my mind.
>

Sorry, who suggested using Chrome as a dependency here? Not I, at any
rate. As a first suggestion I'd look at a project such as
<https://duktape.org/> for a JavaScript engine. Three files, runnable
on embedded systems with 160KB flash and 64K ram - it is hardly going to
break your resource budget. Off-the-shelf Lua is in the same range.

[leigh.v....@googlemail.com]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 10:23:19 AM UTC, David Brown wrote:
> Sorry, who suggested using Chrome as a dependency here? Not I, at any
> rate. As a first suggestion I'd look at a project such as
> <https://duktape.org/> for a JavaScript engine. Three files, runnable
> on embedded systems with 160KB flash and 64K ram - it is hardly going to
> break your resource budget. Off-the-shelf Lua is in the same range.

Duktape doesn't have a JIT. Listen David, you are not cognisant of my vision and you are underestimating my technical abilities. I am not RCH -- I do know what I am doing. I know how to design software based on decades of experience learning both from my successes and mistakes. Once the infrastructure for my universal compiler is in place adding support for a particular programming language would be almost trivial. This is a functional requirement of my architecture.

/Leigh/Flibble

[David Brown]

On 25/02/2019 11:48, leigh.v....@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 10:23:19 AM UTC, David Brown wrote:
>> Sorry, who suggested using Chrome as a dependency here? Not I, at
>> any rate. As a first suggestion I'd look at a project such as
>> <https://duktape.org/> for a JavaScript engine. Three files,
>> runnable on embedded systems with 160KB flash and 64K ram - it is
>> hardly going to break your resource budget. Off-the-shelf Lua is
>> in the same range.
>
> Duktape doesn't have a JIT.

True. JIT systems are big and complex, and are tightly tied to specific
systems. Are you sure that scripts run from within neoGFX are going to
be so big and demanding that a JIT strategy is worth the effort? As you
say, I don't know your vision. But it would surprise me greatly if that
were the case.

And are you convinced that your users would rather wait a few years
(this is, I think, being wildly optimistic) for a solid and reliable JIT
compiler that will handle a dozen different languages they will never
use - or would they prefer a simple working Lua and/or JavaScript
interpreter here and now?

> Listen David, you are not cognisant of my
> vision and you are underestimating my technical abilities.

I don't know your vision, or your abilities (judging from what I have
seen, they are very good but not super-human). That is why I am asking
questions and making suggestions - to be sure that you have considered
what makes sense for you and your project. The appearance you have
given in this thread suggests that you are /not/ making sensible choices
or realistic plans. It may be that you have not made yourself clear, or
have some secret methods that we don't know about. I am throwing up
questions - only you can answer them. (And you have mostly avoided them
so far.)

> I am not
> RCH -- I do know what I am doing. I know how to design software based
> on decades of experience learning both from my successes and
> mistakes. Once the infrastructure for my universal compiler is in
> place adding support for a particular programming language would be
> almost trivial. This is a functional requirement of my architecture.
>

You are not Rick - that much is true. But there are similarities here -
surely you cannot be surprised that people thought your post was a
parody of him.

Do you have any experience with Ada, Forth, JavaScript, Python and Lua?
The Ada language standard, for example, is 832 pages long. That you
can describe implementing it as "almost trivial" suggests that either
you have many well-hidden talents, or you /don't/ know what you are doing.

(Note that I am writing all this because I think neoGFX is a great idea,
and would be happy to see it succeed - wild optimism about a one mad
universal super-compiler seems a good way to make it fail.)

[Scott Lurndal]

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:

>
>You made two mistakes there:
>1) you compared apples with oranges: my projects are serious whilst
>Hodgin's are toy;
>2) you are underestimating my technical ability.

You both do have hubris in common...

[leigh.v....@googlemail.com]

Confidence is often mistaken for hubris by those who have neither.

/Leigh/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:28:51 AM UTC-5, leigh.v....@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:19:38 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
> > >2) you are underestimating my technical ability.

A scene leaps to mind:

Beginning at 3:48:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tzqehBgi4I&t=3m48s

> > You both do have hubris in common...
>

> Confidence is often mistaken for hubris...

People seeking to attack others also often assert "hubris" as a
blanket assessment, rather than seeking to know the truth of the
situation, or the true goals of the individual.

I've looked at your work, Leigh. I have no doubts in your technical
abilities. I believe you will suceed in what you set your mind
to, and I am sincere in my wishing you great success.

I am equally sincere in trying to teach you the truth about sin
and spiritual influences ... but, you will not point your high
intellect toward that saving knowledge.

You will undoubtedly have success here in this world, but it will
be short-lived without Christ, without forgiveness of your sin.

You are as Anakin ... so full of blind rage against the truth you
cannot see it, nor will you hear it. But there is hope. Vader
eventually saw the light. It's possible you will too.

I am envious of your passion and accomplishments. You have had
a goal and a vision and you've remained focused upon it for years.
The success you achieve will be well-earned, well-deserved, and
I do wish you bug-free code, and feature-rich options.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[James Kuyper]

But it's even more common for hubris to be mistaken for confidence by
those who have hubris.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Look at his code and judge for yourself. Leigh's got game.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 25/02/2019 15:16, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> I am envious of your passion and accomplishments. You have had
> a goal and a vision and you've remained focused upon it for years.
> The success you achieve will be well-earned, well-deserved, and
> I do wish you bug-free code, and feature-rich options.

Not true. I have only been thinking about creating a C++ GUI library to
compete with the likes of Qt's for the past 10 years only seriously
starting to tackle it 3.5 years ago; last year I decided to change the
scope of neoGFX to be a full blown app/game creation framework so I am now
competing with the likes of Unity and Unreal Engine and only in the past
few weeks did I decide to make the neoGFX scripting engine a separate
project with a universal compiler.

A universal compiler makes sense if you want the framework to support
everyone's favourite scripting language and of course it has a nice side
benefit of an explicit separation of concerns: the language and the
implementation.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <4eb9d972-a336-478e...@googlegroups.com>,

I get where you are coming from. I'm sure he is every bit as competent as
you are.

So, from your POV, it must look good.

You two are so meant for each other.

--
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don't have the time!

- David Byrne -

[Mr Flibble]

You are asserting that without actually looking at my code? Remember what
Christopher Hitchens said about assertions based on no evidence Kenny. You
are indeed a fucktard.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 12:26:41 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 25/02/2019 15:16, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >
> > I am envious of your passion and accomplishments. You have had
> > a goal and a vision and you've remained focused upon it for years.
> > The success you achieve will be well-earned, well-deserved, and
> > I do wish you bug-free code, and feature-rich options.
>
> Not true. I have only been thinking about creating a C++ GUI library to
> compete with the likes of Qt's for the past 10 years only seriously
> starting to tackle it 3.5 years ago; last year I decided to change the
> scope of neoGFX to be a full blown app/game creation framework so I am now
> competing with the likes of Unity and Unreal Engine and only in the past
> few weeks did I decide to make the neoGFX scripting engine a separate
> project with a universal compiler.
>
> A universal compiler makes sense if you want the framework to support
> everyone's favourite scripting language and of course it has a nice side
> benefit of an explicit separation of concerns: the language and the
> implementation.

I admire your passion and years of dedication to this vision, and
I recognize evolving goals. It's still a big job, and it's im-
pressive to see it unfurl.

I've been 6.5 yrs on my vision, 3+ years on my CAlive vision, and
I still have ~6 yrs ahead for my full vision, with CAlive being
released next year sometime.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

Rick, if you want people to take your technical output (including your
"vision") seriously the first step is to entirely divorce it from your
theistic beliefs: your god has no place in engineering just as your
religious spam has no place in this technical newsgroup. You can make a
easy start by simply changing the name of "CAlive" to something that
doesn't have any "born again" connotations.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

> theistic beliefs...

We (man) were created to honor God. We (all of us) are supposed
to be honoring and acknowledging God in everything we do, and that
is true because of who He is and what He's done. That is the guidance
of God, the Holy Spirit, and it is beneficial for all.

There is another voice teaching otherwise, and you follow that
voice. That voice denies God and teaches separation of God from
life things.

The two cannot be separated.

I will likely never enjoy Earthly success on my projects, because
my goals are not here in this world, but they are above, to honor
God with the fruit of my thoughts, labor, goals, and dreams. I
seek to honor God, and my success comes in me maintaining that goal
and vision as a voice raised in a room full of successful Leighs
who have achieved great success without an acknowledgement of God.
That achievement comes here in this world, but it will not endure.
And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.

The things we do for Christ endure beyond this world into eternity.
The things we do here endure only here.

It's a different world-view, a different end-goal, and I still admire
you for the devotion to your vision. It's admirable and moving.

I have similar goals and I know how hard it is to endure year-in,
year-out on the project alone, let alone with people calling you
profane names, and mocking and disparaging everything you do and
believe in.

My pain and loss brings me to tears quite often, but I know the
One in whom I trust ... so I proceed. I endure. For Him.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
> each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.

We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record:
ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your
beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not
evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:31:47 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> > And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
> > each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.
>
> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record:
> ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your
> beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not
> evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.
>
> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly.

The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not
know ... from the spirit.

People aren't saved unless they seek the truth. You do not seek
the truth, but keep gainsayingly re-assert your assertion above.
You are unwilling to believe God could exist, that sin is real, that
we continue on after we leave this world.

That wall you build around yourself keeps you from the knowledge.
To be saved you have to have the true inner seeking along these
lines: "IF I am wrong, I do want to know the truth."

God looks inside of our thoughts and knows our intent, and if we
have an intent on knowing the truth, then HE steps into your life,
intervening supernaturally, drawing you from within in ways you
won't understand or believe, to bring you to the foot of the cross,
where you acknowledge your sin and ask forgiveness.

It is spirit. It is new life. It is something we cannot understand
in our flesh only, and you will never believe me until it happens
to you because the flesh only knows what the flesh can know.

Millions of Christians change their entire life. It's not due to
delusion. It's due to the spirit.

The problem is we're still tied to this flesh, and it's hard to
follow after the spirit in the midst of the ways of thid world and
the people in it.

Christians can only teach you the truth. We can't make you believe
it. You'll have to want to know the truth even if you have to change
your current beliefs. That's something only you can do. God can
do the rest, but He honors our choices, even if they send us to
Hell.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 25/02/2019 18:45, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:31:47 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>>> And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
>>> each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.
>>
>> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record:
>> ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your
>> beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not
>> evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.
>>
>> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly.
>
> The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not
> know ... from the spirit.

Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true

is, given (A), also false.

[snip tl;dr]

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 25/02/2019 18:45, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:31:47 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>
> >>> And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
> >>> each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.
> >>
> >> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record:
> >> ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your
> >> beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not
> >> evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.
> >>
> >> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly.
> >
> > The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not
> > know ... from the spirit.
> Nonsense.
> A) Your bible is false.
> B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
> is, given (A), also false.
>
> [snip tl;dr]

There have been many people in my life who re-assert without
investigation as you do. Breaks my heart every time.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[james...@alumni.caltech.edu]

If some one is competent to perform the nearly god-like task he's set
himself up for on any reasonable time scale, a person of merely human
competence like myself would not be competent to reach that conclusion
by examining the evidence. I'm not even competent to judge whether gcc
is correctly implemented, an immensely simpler task - I'm not competent
to read all of the computer languages it's written in, nor to understand
all of the source code languages it's intended to parse, nor to
understand all the platforms it's intended to target.

If the evidence of his competence is sufficiently simple to evaluate
that I am competent to judge it, the judgement is simple - he can't do
it. And I'm not particular interested in finding out whether or not his competence is in a range that I am competent to assess.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

There's nothing else to be done then except wait and see.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <3113cc3f-e234-4646...@googlegroups.com>,

Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:31:47 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>> > And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
>> > each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.
>>
>> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record:
>> ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your
>> beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not
>> evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.
>>
>> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly.
>
>The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not
>know ... from the spirit.

Reality is that which does not go away because you stop believing in it.

(This comment will, of course, go completely over RCH's head, but others
will get what I'm saying)

--
There are many self-professed Christians who seem to think that because
they believe in Jesus' sacrifice they can reject Jesus' teachings about
how we should treat others. In this country, they show that they reject
Jesus' teachings by voting for Republicans.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:27:28 PM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <3113cc3f-e234-4646...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:31:47 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>
> >> > And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for
> >> > each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is.
> >>
> >> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record:
> >> ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your
> >> beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not
> >> evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.
> >>
> >> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly.
> >
> >The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not
> >know ... from the spirit.
>
> Reality is that which does not go away because you stop believing in it.

The flesh and physical reality still exist, but the light of the
spirit reveals them for what they truly are.

(This reply will not be understood by you because you do not have
the spirit to discern spiritual things. All you know is the flesh,
so your entire reality lives only there and you can only conclude
I am a lunatic, but it's what these lyrics mean below.)below

"I once was lost, but now am found.
Was blind, but now I see."

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Anonymous Reactionary]

"Mr Flibble" wrote:

> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken
> record: ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT
> EVIDENCE.  Your beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar
> delusions are not evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.

The sun is a star.

The sky is blue.

I present these claims without evidence.

Go ahead and dismiss them.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <q54vps$2hr5$1...@adenine.netfront.net>,

Anonymous Reactionary <anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:
>"Mr Flibble" wrote:
>
>> We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken
>> record: ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT
>> EVIDENCE.  Your beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar
>> delusions are not evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE.
>
>The sun is a star.

The sun is not a star. Nathan Fillion is a star.

>The sky is blue.

Actually, the sky is black at the moment.
Around here, it is rarely blue.

Alternatively, a pedant (such as are found in abundance in this particular
Usenet newsgroup) would argue that the sky is not (i.e., never) blue; it
just appears that way to our eyes because of certain atmospheric conditions
(which we need not go into at the moment).

--
To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian.

- Rick C Hodgin -

[Josef Moellers]

On 27.02.19 10:07, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Alternatively, a pedant (such as are found in abundance in this particular
> Usenet newsgroup) would argue that the sky is not (i.e., never) blue; it
> just appears that way to our eyes because of certain atmospheric conditions
> (which we need not go into at the moment).

... which we then define as "blue" ;-)

Josef

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 4:07:28 AM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> --
> To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian.
> - Rick C Hodgin -

Context:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/0wsgNOodmDg/BjAYVyBXBwAJ

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bart]

On 24/02/2019 11:20, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 04:47, Cholo Lennon wrote:
>> On 2/24/19 12:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Work on neos my universal compiler that can compile ANY programming
>>> language is progressing.  Initial language implementations will be
>>> Ada, JavaScript, Python, Lua and Forth then maybe C.
>>>
>>
>> It sounds interesting. Could you describe your compiler? Is something
>> similar, for example, to clang/LLVM? What architecture/platform are
>> you going to support?
>
> The compiler is language agnostic (i.e. contains no C++ code specific to
> any one programming language). A language schema file that describes the
> syntax and semantics of the language is an input to the compiler; the
> format of the schema file is Relaxed JSON so is very easy to write.
>
> The target of the compiler is my custom bytecode VM which will have a JIT.

...
> Kind of: the main difference being that I don't have to recompile any
> binaries to support a new language as long as the semantic concepts are
> already available: all that is required is a new language schema file
> describing the language. If there are any new semantic concepts required
> then they can be added with a plugin using neos's plugin architecture.

If this is actually the case, then your project really is extraordinary.

It would mean that someone can invent any new language, even one as
complex as C++, or as diverse as Algol68 and 'K', without that nuisance
of having to create an implementation in order to be able to use it.

They just write a JSON file that describes the language and how it works.

It sounds too good to be true ... unless writing that JSON file ends up
being far more complex than just creating a regular compiler.

So if this is what it comes down do: still having the effort of
implementing a new language but with a compiler somehow expressed as
JSON rather than with a general purpose language, then perhaps it isn't
so extraordinary.

But then again, if you /can/ express a compiler for Ada, for example,
with a considerably reduced line count compared with a normal Ada
compiler, then that would be impressive.

[leigh.v....@googlemail.com]

The implementation time / line count saving stems from the fact that you only have to implement a (generic) semantic concept once which can then be used across multiple languages. So overall there wouldn't be a saving if only one language was implemented: the saving stems from the fact that multiple languages can be described by a combination of an RJSON file and semantic concepts implemented in C++ in concept plugins. When I ship 1.0 the predefined semantic concepts should be quite rich due to me tackling Ada first.

/Leigh/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 10:29:38 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 11:20, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Kind of: the main difference being that I don't have to recompile any
> > binaries to support a new language as long as the semantic concepts are
> > already available: all that is required is a new language schema file
> > describing the language. If there are any new semantic concepts required
> > then they can be added with a plugin using neos's plugin architecture.
>
> If this is actually the case, then your project really is extraordinary.
>
> It would mean that someone can invent any new language, even one as
> complex as C++, or as diverse as Algol68 and 'K', without that nuisance
> of having to create an implementation in order to be able to use it.
>
> They just write a JSON file that describes the language and how it works.

This is quite similar to what CAlive does in the RDC framework,
except in CAlive it's a GUI editor that lets you create the lang-
uage definition. You can test out syntaxes, step through the
compilation process, and edit things as you go.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Öö Tiib]

Despite all use cases of all programs are same from uppermost concept
(input)->(processing)->(output) the details are always different.

Let's say for example that C preprocessor takes about 3.5 months to
write. Let's say Ada has about 13 times more details in it. If to assume
that tinkering with every detail takes about same time in average then
Ada translator takes about 4.5 man-years to write based on amount
of details. Actually that is not so linear since the details interfere with
each other and complicate it up the more detailed and complex the
whole thing is the worse, but let's ignore that.

Now let's imagine that we have already written Ada translator. Can we
reuse much of it to produce a C preprocessor somehow faster than
with 3.5 months? I doubt that since the details are still there and are
different than those with Ada.

[Bart]

As described the project doesn't sound viable, not if the only input for
each new language is a data file.

It needs to be code. In other words, you have to write a new compiler
front-end for each language. Perhaps some elements such as lexers can be
reused, or driven from grammar descriptions, but as you say something
like C is going to be different from any other language because of the
peculiar way its preprocessor works. And every language will have its
own quirks.

The OP mentioned a semantic module in a way that suggested code plug-ins
for each language. That's another way of saying you need a separate
compiler for each.

Maybe all these disparate compilers can be made to fit into a common
framework, but that then doesn't sound much different than using a
make-file to build mixed-language projects.

The advantage of a universal compiler, if it tries to do anything
cleverer than just invoking a dedicated compiler for each language, is
then less obvious.

But then we get to the fact that all these languages will have the same
target, some VM, but it would need to be a VM that can cope with both
highly dynamic languages and very static ones.

Or perhaps (I don't know how it works), it's a more static VM for which
certain dynamic languages will require an extra layer of code, that does
the job of interpreter.

So it might be that there will still be a need for compilers and
interpreters, but in some different form.

[Paavo Helde]

On 28.02.2019 20:39, Bart wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 15:47, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> Now let's imagine that we have already written Ada translator. Can we
>> reuse much of it to produce a C preprocessor somehow faster than
>> with 3.5 months? I doubt that since the details are still there and are
>> different than those with Ada.
>
> As described the project doesn't sound viable, not if the only input for
> each new language is a data file.

I think you all have misinterpreted Mr. Flibble's intent. He said his
universal compiler will support Ada, Python, C, etc. How everybody
interpreted this was that what is supported is the union of all these
languages, so that one would get the hard real-time multithreading from
Ada, all fancy deep learning stuff like NumPy+tensorflow from Python, etc.

I guess what he really had in mind was the *intersection* of languages,
so you can write a program for adding 2+2 in Ada, Python, C, etc, and it
would work the same.

[Bart]

No, I assumed that the universal compiler would work with either
language X or Y or Z, always one at a time, with the output always being
the same VM language.

I think I did ask about whether mixed source was allowed (one source
file containing a mix of languages, presumably requiring special
directives to tell you what was what), and I also asked about
interfacing between language X and language Y.

However, the whole thing is still a bit of a mystery.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/02/2019 21:54, Bart wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 19:41, Paavo Helde wrote:
>> On 28.02.2019 20:39, Bart wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2019 15:47, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> Now let's imagine that we have already written Ada translator. Can we
>>>> reuse much of it to produce a C preprocessor somehow faster than
>>>> with 3.5 months? I doubt that since the details are still there and are
>>>> different than those with Ada.
>>>
>>> As described the project doesn't sound viable, not if the only input for
>>> each new language is a data file.
>>
>> I think you all have misinterpreted Mr. Flibble's intent. He said his
>> universal compiler will support Ada, Python, C, etc. How everybody
>> interpreted this was that what is supported is the union of all these
>> languages, so that one would get the hard real-time multithreading from
>> Ada, all fancy deep learning stuff like NumPy+tensorflow from Python, etc.
>>
>> I guess what he really had in mind was the *intersection* of languages,
>> so you can write a program for adding 2+2 in Ada, Python, C, etc, and it
>> would work the same.
>>
>
> No, I assumed that the universal compiler would work with either language
> X or Y or Z, always one at a time, with the output always being the same
> VM language.

Correct although theoretically my universal compiler can handle
translation units written in different languages much like a traditional
linker can link object files compiled from different languages.

>
> I think I did ask about whether mixed source was allowed (one source file
> containing a mix of languages, presumably requiring special directives to
> tell you what was what), and I also asked about interfacing between
> language X and language Y.

No you cannot mix languages within the same translation unit but see above.

>
> However, the whole thing is still a bit of a mystery.

I like a good mystery.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/02/2019 22:09, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 21:54, Bart wrote:
>> On 28/02/2019 19:41, Paavo Helde wrote:
>> I think I did ask about whether mixed source was allowed (one source
>> file containing a mix of languages, presumably requiring special
>> directives to tell you what was what), and I also asked about
>> interfacing between language X and language Y.
>
> No you cannot mix languages within the same translation unit but see above.

Actually I might allow files with a .mix file extension. A .mix file would
allow individual translation units to be specified within the same source
file using special directives as you say. This would be a nice feature but
not essential.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:31:30 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 22:09, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On 28/02/2019 21:54, Bart wrote:
> >> On 28/02/2019 19:41, Paavo Helde wrote:
> >> I think I did ask about whether mixed source was allowed (one source
> >> file containing a mix of languages, presumably requiring special
> >> directives to tell you what was what), and I also asked about
> >> interfacing between language X and language Y.
> >
> > No you cannot mix languages within the same translation unit but see above.
>
> Actually I might allow files with a .mix file extension. A .mix file would
> allow individual translation units to be specified within the same source
> file using special directives as you say. This would be a nice feature but
> not essential.

CAlive's design allows mixing of CAlive code and VXB++ code (an
XBASE language) natively. The design also allows other blocks to
be compiled using the standard assembly notation, but with the
other language's prefix:

_java {
}

_c# {
}

Et cetera.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

I will probably use a non-ASCII character to delineate different languages
(source files have to be UTF-8 encoded), perhaps the atheism emoji:

⚛⚛c⚛
/* two emoji means make c the default language for this source file */
#include <stdio.h>
⚛c++⚛
#include <iostream>
⚛ada⚛
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
⚛⚛

printf("Hello, world (from C)!\n");

⚛c++⚛
std::cout << "Hello, world (from C++)!" << std::endl;
⚛ada⚛
procedure Hello is
begin
Put_Line("Hello, world (from Ada)!");
end Hello;
⚛⚛

printf("Hello again from C!\n");

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Your way is easier to read, and naturally intuitive.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 28.02.2019 23:31, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> Actually I might allow files with a .mix file extension. A .mix file
> would allow individual translation units to be specified within the same
> source file using special directives as you say. This would be a nice
> feature but not essential.

Donald Knuth would be pleased to hear about this! :)


Cheers!,

- Alf

[David Brown]

On 28/02/2019 23:31, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 22:09, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 28/02/2019 21:54, Bart wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2019 19:41, Paavo Helde wrote:
>>> I think I did ask about whether mixed source was allowed (one source
>>> file containing a mix of languages, presumably requiring special
>>> directives to tell you what was what), and I also asked about
>>> interfacing between language X and language Y.
>>
>> No you cannot mix languages within the same translation unit but see
>> above.
>
> Actually I might allow files with a .mix file extension. A .mix file
> would allow individual translation units to be specified within the same
> source file using special directives as you say. This would be a nice
> feature but not essential.
>
> /Flibble
>

Now I /know/ this is all a parody of Rick's ideas.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <q5at78$71j$1...@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...

>> Actually I might allow files with a .mix file extension. A .mix file
>> would allow individual translation units to be specified within the same
>> source file using special directives as you say. This would be a nice
>> feature but not essential.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
>Now I /know/ this is all a parody of Rick's ideas.

Wonders never cease.

Me & DB agreeing on something.

--
Christianity is not a religion.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 5:43:31 AM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Christianity is not a religion.
> - Rick C Hodgin -

Context:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/r8g28GOHslU/QP-vAIHMBQAJ

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Additional context:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/1F8H2QfQDdM/We0vZ8G6BwAJ

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Alf P. Steinbach]

The kind of .mix files the Mr. Fibble describes may be similar to
something that has been tried For Real™, by Microsoft.

Namely, .wsh mixed language script files for Windows Script Host, as
described e.g. at <url:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_Programming/Windows_Script_Host>.

One baffling mix of abstraction levels was that a .wsh file, as I
recall, could define a simple COM component. Implemented with scripting
languages. Oh it was a nice technology, and it's still there, but since
it's not been updated for years it doesn't e.g. support UTF-8.


Cheers!,

- Alf

[Mr Flibble]

Hi!

The neos website is live: https://neos.dev/ \o/

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 3/1/2019 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The neos website is live: https://neos.dev/ \o/

Fwiw, be sure to tell me when you get Python 3 up and running. I will
try it out. Also have some experimental dynamic field based DLA
JavaScript code that would be interesting to test on neos:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test

Let it run for around half-a-minute then click somewhere in the square
to create a new DLA seed. It should create renderings like:

https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/LjJesbaokGd

Here is a C++ version using Cairo for the graphics:

https://github.com/ChrisMThomasson/CT_fieldDLA

[Ike Naar]

On 2019-02-27, Anonymous Reactionary <anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:
> The sky is blue.

Half of the time it's black.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Depends on where you are. It's also never truly black. And of the
small number of photons entering our atmosphere in the darker hours,
more of the blue are being scattered ... making the sky blue contin-
ually, just at varying degrees of perceptible illumination to our
eyes and equipment.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Looking straight up on a dark, clear night tends to look "brighter" than
looking off into a distant horizon.

[Queequeg]

leigh.v....@googlemail.com wrote:

> I hope to get "Hello, world!" working in Ada by next weekend ..
> screenshots will be provided.

How it goes?

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Mr Flibble]

On 08/05/2019 19:10, Queequeg wrote:
> leigh.v....@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> I hope to get "Hello, world!" working in Ada by next weekend ..
>> screenshots will be provided.
>
> How it goes?

Release date: when it's done.

[Queequeg]

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:

>>> I hope to get "Hello, world!" working in Ada by next weekend ..
>>> screenshots will be provided.
>>
>> How it goes?
>
> Release date: when it's done.

"By next weekend" ;)

--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 08.05.2019 21:26, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 08/05/2019 19:10, Queequeg wrote:
>> leigh.v....@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I hope to get "Hello, world!" working in Ada by next weekend ..
>>> screenshots will be provided.
>>
>> How it goes?
>
> Release date: when it's done.

Jerry Pournelle, when he wrote the Chaos Manor column in BYTE magazine,
called that “Real Soon Now™”.

Hm, I don't recall if he used the trademark symbol.

Anyway.

This reminds me to read the Ringworld series again.

It sort of creeps up on you how accurate it was in its prediction
(that's where it starts, IIRC) of an overpopulated Earth with birthright
lotteries. I think that's where we're heading. And then logically some
family /has/ to be the luckiest ones, winning the extra birthright again
and again − evolving for luck! While other families fizzle out, not
winning the lottery enough. Like vaporware, sort of, yes?


Cheers!, :)

- Alf

[Bonita Montero]

Your idea of mixing different languages in a single file is simply
idiotic.

[Thiago Adams]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-3, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Your idea of mixing different languages in a single file is simply
> idiotic.

How about C++ and asm at the same file?

// standard inline assembly
asm ("movq $60, %rax\n\t"
"movq $2, %rdi\n\t"
"syscall");

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Your idea of mixing different languages in a single file is simply
> idiotic.

I disagree. There are some things that can be done in a particular
language very well, but sometimes you need to do something that is
not quite as easy in that language, but is easier in another.

By being able to work on the same data and types across language
platforms, it enables the syntax abilities and muscle flexing of
each language strength to enter in and accomplish tasks with fewer
developer instructions.

It's actually the way of the future in my opinion. Integration,
not isolation, and single source interfaces able to reach out to
multiple different types of things (a web browser being used for
multiple purposes is an example, but also a single source file
used for different types of code is another).

We're going to see more and more of this integration over time.
It is only natural.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 09/05/2019 16:51, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Your idea of mixing different languages in a single file is simply
> idiotic.

Don't be silly.

[Mr Flibble]

All software is "vaporware" until it is released, dear.

[Bonita Montero]

>> Your idea of mixing different languages in a single file is simply
>> idiotic.

> How about C++ and asm at the same file?
> // standard inline assembly
> asm ("movq $60, %rax\n\t"
> "movq $2, %rdi\n\t"
> "syscall");

That's a matter of necessity and this is not a kind of coding-beauty.
What Mr. Fibble suggests has no necissity and would lead to totally
confused code.

[Bonita Montero]

>> How about C++ and asm at the same file?
>>     // standard inline assembly
>>      asm ("movq $60, %rax\n\t"
>>           "movq $2,  %rdi\n\t"
>>           "syscall");

> That's a matter of necessity and this is not a kind of coding-beauty.
> What Mr. Fibble suggests has no necissity and would lead to totally
> confused code.

And ...
... MS dropped inline-assembly completely with VC++ / 64 bit.
Everything you coud do with inline-assemby is now possible via
intrinsics.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

In most cases, inline assembly is not needed either. An external
single ASM source file with an exposed function names would allow
standard C/C++ syntax to be used to reach those functions. And
the C++ optimizing compiler + linker could likely inline those
calls for you making it be as though it were inline ASM anyway.

Very little NEEDS to be done apart from that model today. However,
it is more efficient to be able to integrate those disparate and
[each uniquely-in-their-own-way] powerful abilities of each language
into a single source file.

It will become a very powerful tool.

Imagine doing scripting in Python, for example, and then being able
to leave Python code to be able to do some low-level C/C++ code on
it, and then return.

By exposing that Python API to your C/C++ code natively in a single
source file, you'll have the ability to write code that does more
faster, with fewer lines, and with well-proven libraries that are
not limited to C/C++ and its link-in extensions.

What would be even nicer is a compiler that can compile native code
in each block without having to use wrappers like _asm {..}, but
could simply identify the keywords and syntax of each and allow for
a fully fluid integration.

My language seeks to do that as the syntax for an XBASE language,
which I am targeting, and my own C/C++ like language, are notably
different. And in cases where they're the same (like x = 4), both
types accomplish the same function, so it wouldn't matter if it
accidentally interpreted it as the wrong language, because the
same operation would be achieved.

In addition, where there are unresolvable conflicts, only then
place the code in a named block to remove the ambiguity.

I think Leigh has a winner with his single language tool. It
may not be his product that catches on, but one like it surely
will, and soon I'd wager.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

I am not making a single language tool; I am making a universal compiler
that can compile any programming language it just so happens that with my
architecture you get the ability to mix different programming languages in
the same source file almost for free. This ability is not a primary
functional requirement of neos.