Hobby languages
in [Cobol]
|
From: Bruce M. Axtens on 22 Jul 2010 05:45 On 21/07/2010 10:32 PM, Howard Brazee wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:19:59 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell Speaking of Mac languages, how about Objective Modula-2? <http://objective.modula2.net/> "Objective Modula-2 is a reflective, object oriented programming language with dynamic message dispatch (late binding) and both static and dynamic typing. Its object system is based on the object model of Smalltalk and it uses the runtime library of Objective-C to support the Cocoa and GNUstep APIs natively. "The design is an example how native support for Cocoa (Mac OS X), Cocoa Touch (iPhone) and GNUstep (BSD/Linux) can be added to static imperative programming languages without implementing an Objective-C bridge."
From: Alistair on 22 Jul 2010 06:55 On Jul 20, 4:47 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Richard > > <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >OpenCOBOL is free and is alleged to run on a Mac. > > >http://www.opencobol.org/ > > >I would suggest that you could run it under a web server to give a > >user interface on the browser. SVG graphics is supported by Safari. > > That may be the easiest. > > >If you want a different language then I use Python for most everything > >and it runs on almost every machine from phones to supercomputers. > > What are the advantages of Python for my personal use on one computer? > > Hmmm. Eventually I will be downsizing and getting rid of my > library. That will be hard, but at that time I will evaluate e-book > readers, and may choose something that has some computing power. > Technology changes rapidly, so it would be a guess what I'd get - but > that might be a good reason for selecting a language that is on a lot > of platforms. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison If you were ever to ditch the Mac and buy in to Windows, there is F# available from Microsoft for free at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/fsharp/default.aspx F# is a functional language and borrows much from C#. It is not available for platforms other than Windows.
From: Fred Mobach on 22 Jul 2010 09:28 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:19:59 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell > <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote: > >> >>I think the best language ever to hit the PC is Ada. I think a guy >>like you (from what I have seen of your postings anyway) would love >>it. It's like PL/I on steroids. If not for the fact it's only >>available (well modern versions anyway) under the GPL, it would be >>perfect. Actually the supplied libraries are LGPL (sortof kindof >>asfarasweknow) but most 3rd party libs are pure shitty GPL. If that >>doesn't bother you then there is no better language on the PC than >>Ada, and if it weren't for assembler there would be no better >>mainframe language either. > > PL/I on steroids - attractive. Both PL/I & Ada were designed to do > everything. Glancing at Google (on my Windows machine at work), I > get the impression that I'll have to learn how to build the > programming environment similar to what it appears I will have to > learn to build a CoBOL programming environment. But first > impressions can be misleading. Where (while searching for gcc ada) the first page on Google brought me: http://eng-osx.sourceforge.net/GNAT.html which points to sone of the properly maintained package from other sites. No need to learn how to build the programming environment. :-) -- Fred Mobach - fred(a)mobach.nl website : https://fred.mobach.nl .... In God we trust .... .. The rest we monitor ..
From: George Orwell on 22 Jul 2010 10:30 The problem with alot of these languages is they are still niche languages and using them for real world projects puts you at risk of support issues and performance issues and other types of problems where you just hit the wall and "that's the way it is". I know the thread is "Hobby Languages" but Ocaml, Haskell and tons of other languages are just too weird and not flexible enough considering all the other mainstream choices like Ada, LISP variations etc. Most weird languages have a specific agenda (functional programming, object-oriented programming) that makes them not suitable as general purpose languages given they more or less force you into their way of approaching problems. And they seem to revel in bizarre syntax that only experts can read instead of clarity, with no clear advantage in any other area. I dislike languages that aren't obvious. Expert languages are great for experts but code needs to be readable without having funny side-effects only experts can spot. For me a hobby language has to be flexible and powerful, I really don't make a distinction in what I would use for hobby programming vs. professional programming. The language has to be clean and not get in my way, and it has to compile to native code (not byte code and not wierd intermediate code- native code! I mean it!) I don't like having to use brackets all over the place or overloaded operators. Typing is just not that expensive compared to a clean looking, pleasing languages. I don't think every problem in the world is best solved with OO. I don't even think OO is right for most problems. Nor do I think structured programming is a good general technique. When I look at a language I choose one that offers options in how to approach problems so I can solve the problem how it makes sense to me to solve it instead of having the language be a mold around every problem. That is why I am in favor of Ada....it is a "traditional" procedural language that is readable almost immediately but also offers *additional* ways of looking at problems and implementing their solutions (object orientation) without limiting you to a "one world view" of problems. It is hard to argue procedural languages are inappropriate for the vast majority of programming problems. That doesn't mean there aren't more natural or better ways, but a simple old fashioned procedural (functional decomposition) approach will get the job done 99 times out of a hundred. When you get into really large systems with big line counts Ada shines over most other systems simply because dealing with very large systems was a fundamental aspect that was agreed must be dealt with in the design of Ada from the very beginning. It's true that if you are a makefile wizard you can achieve much of the same (but not all) result as you can with Ada's approach, but I would rather have one stop shopping. Let the language (the language system) deal with all that rather than me having to learn peculiarities of gcc, etc. Since we are in comp.lang.cobol, Ada is a good choice because even though in many ways it's very different than COBOL, COBOL programmers will find it a lot more familiar and easy to live with than most other languages. Ada is also a mainframe language and has some of the same thinking and approaches behind it, unlike most of the PC languages. It offers every bit of the power and flexibility of C and C++ but with a more intelligible presentation, prettier and less confusing, and much safer. If you can get past the compiler you have a better than average chance your code will work as desired, instead of just work. LISP for all it's apparent wierdness still is quite flexible in allowing you to choose how to implement your solution and doesn't impose a particular view of how all problems must be represented. It used to (everything is a list) but those days are long gone. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it
From: Howard Brazee on 22 Jul 2010 13:51
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:07:18 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >You said you are committed to Mac, and you were looking for a hobby, >Howard... :-) > >I have complete confidence you will achieve whatever you set out to do. > >If you write the engine in COBOL there are any number of interface options >for the GUI. > >Another possibility might be to use Haskell. It looks like a "likely" >language, and it is free and runs on Mac. > >It really comes down to hiow much time you have and how much aggravation >(learning...) you are prepared toundertake. :-) Right now, I am likely narrowed to Haskell or CoBOL - whichever gives me least aggravation in what I'm not interested in (getting it working), and to what I am interested in (programming). -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |