The Blue Programming Language 1.4.3

AJ · Post by AJ » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:37 am

I'm sure something similar has been posted on the forums before, but have a look at -> this < -.

Oh - and while I'm posting daft links, try this one too
Cheers,
Adam

Meor · Post by **Meor** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:17 am

binutils wrote:Any recommendation of another programming language?
now these day pl projects boom seems over.

Eiffel.

nekros · Post by **nekros** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:41 pm

I am really interested in PL design and implementation along with OS development, I'm torn between the two.

nekros · Post by **nekros** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:39 pm

Well, since I am rewriting my kernel, I have decided to first create a PL to write it in. Wish me luck.

B.E · Post by **B.E** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:28 am

imho i think that this language is what's the word for it, horrible worse than VB (and that's saying something).

Paw · Post by **Paw** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:33 am

B.E wrote:imho i think that this language is what's the word for it, horrible worse than VB (and that's saying something).

Would you please point out what makes you come to that conclusion?

B.E · Post by **B.E** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:24 am

Paw wrote:
B.E wrote:imho i think that this language is what's the word for it, horrible worse than VB (and that's saying something).
Would you please point out what makes you come to that conclusion?

It's syntax is horrible to read. It's looks like their've added random features from random languages.

Combuster · Post by **Combuster** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:05 am

My biggest concern is that it lacks typing, and therefore doesn't promote proper coding at all. (as well as being very error prone)

Paw · Post by **Paw** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:40 am

Well, I don't like much the syntax either, because a couple of things are too complicated to express, but it is far from being horrible or unreadable.

This language doesn't lack typing, either, because similar to scripting languages like PHP or JavaScript, a variable is typed through the data it contains, and its type can be queried with language constructs like typeof, instanceof etc.

You *can* properly and quite elegantly code with such languages, but usually this requires some experience with strongly typed languages and programming in general, in order to avoid surprises.

Due to my profession, I have to code a lot in scripting languages, and I quite enjoy the flexibility they provide.

B.E · Post by **B.E** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:54 am

It's not that it doesn't have types, it's the way functions are declared. Moreover there is no easy way to say that there must me x args to this function.

Paw · Post by **Paw** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:20 am

B.E wrote:It's not that it doesn't have types, it's the way functions are declared. Moreover there is no easy way to say that there must me x args to this function.

My point about data types was meant to counter Combuster's statement. I agree with the function declaration in terms of function arguments. There should be an option for explicitly declaring them. Blue's way of handling it is quite clumsy.

However, I see no problem in defining functions through an assignment. That way you can easily switch functions for changing the program's behaviour, pass functions as arguments to other functions (e.g. for registering an event observer or for specifying a function which processes a data set) and return functions as a result (e.g. for creating new event handlers on the fly).

I know this can be done with function pointers as well, but it's a matter of syntactic sugar.
This concept is heavily present in ECMAScript, but way better executed there.