I guess there is one other tenet to the Pig philosophy that should be added:
the world doesn't need another crappy programming language.
I have always thought that Pig is meant to be embedded into another language.
Grunt was really just a shell I used for testing Pig. It isn't even worthy of
the name Oink. I would be very disappointed if Grunt became a turing complete
language. I'm also a bit concerned that people have started to conclude that
Grunt == Pig Latin.
Java is the only language for which we currently have a binding, but that
binding is very raw and not very pleasant to use. For a first cut I'm hoping
to get a really nice embedding of Pig Latin in Python: YthonPay.
My dream would be to make it so that you could use Pig in Python much like TCL
in Expect. Basically you could write:
#!/bin/ythonpay
A = load 'input' using MyParser();
B = group A by $0;
C = foreach B generate Foo($1);
but then you realize that you actually want to iterate until Foo() converges,
meaning there is only one group left in B. So, you would write:
#!/bin/ythonpay
A = load 'input' using MyParser();
B = group A by $0;
C = foreach B generate Foo($1);
while B.cardinality() > 1:
B = group C by $0
C = foreach B generate Foo($1);
That is the dream at least. It would be also cool to get UbyRay and ErlPay.
(Perhaps even IcleTay). For Yahoo ErlPay or YthonPay would have the biggest
impact, but I'm too young to like Perl, so my money is on YthonPay, but my
hope is that more than one embedding gets implemented.
ben
On Monday 03 March 2008 19:54:54 pi song wrote:
> Olga,
>
> This is off the topic but I'm really interested in the last bit "Python
> shell integration". How do you see Python fit in Pig?
>
> Cheers,
> Pi
>
> On 3/4/08, Olga Natkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Stefan,
> >
> > The main reason is that, why we would always be parsing pig statement
> > within Pig, for shell we might choose a completely different environment
> > like integration into the Python shell so we probably don't want to put
> > two together.
> >
> > Olga
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Groschupf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:15 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: pigScriptParser
> > >
> > > Olga,
> > > thanks for the clarification.
> > >
> > > > We have a 2 level parser:
> > > >
> > > > Grunt parser handles all commands other than Pig commands
> > >
> > > and passes
> > >
> > > > Pig commands to the pig parser. To do so, it needs to parse the pig
> > > > command enough to figure out that it needs to go to pig parser.
> > >
> > > Why does pig has two parsers? Even if I use embedded pig the
> > > pig latin is the same as in grunt, isn't it?
> > > Isn't that more overhead of maintain two javacc files?
> > >
> > > Stefan
