Anyway: supporting different programming language types is imho no good idea - because the concrete developer (Nicolas?!) will have to put time into this and take it from time for the platform.
yours
Martin.
2005/11/3, Judah Frangipane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I didn't read this whole thread about natural language but I've thought
about it a lot and came up with the idea of natural language on top of
the verbose language. It's a project I've been at for a while but you
write or get from someone else the verbose code and their description of
it being the natural language and then you use it and can rename the
natural language. So let's say someone writes code in whatever language
they are working in:
//my code
dude.run()
then he packages it in a natural language layer (it requires a UI i have
in development)
// natural language code
make dude run
that natural language tag is then renamable on a per user basis. the
original code and natural language is saved no matter where it goes.
so someone from spain can rename the code and call it with:
// natural language code
tipo funcionamiento
but underneath this is the same verbose code.
at the same time if i was writing my new language i would not force a
single syntax. i would allow _vbscript_ and _javascript_ to be intermixed.
if x = 10 then
'do something
end if
if (x==10) {
//do something
}
i would also make a bunch of different functions and methods that all do
the same thing. bring together all the different languages into one. :)
currently there are no synonyms in the different languages afaik. so if
someone wanted to say run someone else could say dash, jog, sprint. i'm
not talking going crazy but maybe adding synonyms from different languages.
so we add this:
string.length = string.count = len(string)
judah
Till Schneidereit wrote:
>Hi Cortlandt,
>
>after recovering from the state my evening plans from tuesday left me in, I can't help adding some more comments:
>
>
>
>>Actually what I am talking about is a compiler with a grammar that reads
>>easily and the ability to create grammars and protocols easily as an
>>important feature.
>>
>>
>
>As I said before, this added expressiveness comes at the tremendous cost of forcing developers to do something most of them normally don't (and would have a hard time to do, I guess): Express their intends in a clear and unambiguous way without having an environment that forces them to do so by sheer lack of expressiveness.
>I admit, though, that this point _might_ be made moot by an excellent development environment giving JIT code hinting in a way that makes it seem like it really enters into a dialogue with the developer.
>
>
>About your (and Julian's) ideas about compilers (or VM's, really) that interpret a program's meaning by looking up lots of information on the internet:
>I can only see two ways to implement this, one of which is interesting but not really that new and, first of all, very intricate, while the other one sounds like the holy grail of programming and is, like all holy grails, absolutely not feasible:
>1. Build a huge library of common knowledge in a clearly defined way that can be consumed via some web service. This way, one could implement "tell jim to buy healthy food" by binding the term "healthy food" with the web service so that it's meaning is automatically derived from this gigantic pool of common knowledge. Ideally, the developer could choose whether a certain version of the definition should be used or whether his program should always use the current definition to benefit from, say, advances in human knowledge about what's healthy.
>Of course, you'd have to have tremendous amounts of ressources to build up this library and some serious QA going to make this worthwhile. (For example, see the problems Wikipedia is going through, right now.)
>This approach is certainly interesting, but, as I said, technically not that novel.
>
>2. Automatically tap the collected knowledge of "the internet" by creating some web service that automatically creates the type of definitions described above on demand and from information gathered through search engines.
>I think that this would be a huge task from a technical point of view, seeing as you'd need to parse and interpret free-form texts and whatnot. Also, I could see a whole new era of search engine spamming coming, with McDonald's trying to push a definition of "healthy food" that basically says "eat five quarter pounders a day, and you're fine".
>
>
>What I could imagine would be some dialogue based development where you'd be able to have a conversation along the following lines:
>
>Dave: HAL, I'd like you to tell jim to get some healthy food from the store.
>HAL: Do you mean the store we talked about last week, dave?
>Dave: Yes, HAL, that's the one.
>HAL: Ok, Dave, I'll tell him. I'm gonna use the definition of "healthy food" you gave me two weeks ago, ok?
>Dave: Yup, go for it.
>
>and so on ...
>
>But then again, would you really want to go to all that hassle only to - inevitably - get the dreaded "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sooner or later? ;-)
>
>cheers,
>till
>
>_______________________________________________
>osflash mailing list
>[email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
