OSDev.org

• Capable of treating lines of code as commands to execute programs or open resources (like in DOS and Bash)
• Suited for operating on streams like Perl
• Very easy to parse, with a small set of reserved keywords
• Supports parallelism and concurrency
• Supports capturing signals for exceptions and events

call BuildFile 1
on Done
  out "Finished."
hang


do : BuildFile
  {
    if $1 = 1 then
      do
        {
          gcc /o test1 test1.c
        }
    else if $1 = 2 then
      do
        {
          gcc /o test2 test2.c
        }
    else if $1 = 3 then
      gcc /o test3 test3.c
  }

iansjack wrote:I think I must misunderstand your explanation because I can't see anything special about the way that your language handles functions (apart from the idea of handling function calls as threads - which seems inefficient and to have potential synchronization problems).

iansjack wrote:You have some extra verbiage, like "call" and "do:", which other languages manage very well without; I can't see what they bring to the party.

if <condition...>
<condition...>
<condition...>
then
do {}

The use of the 'do' keyword in the example is not a traditional usage of the 'do' keyword. It wraps and labels a macro instruction with it's own closure and scope. This can be very useful for metaprogramming and it greatly simplifies parsing.

SoulofDeity wrote:

iansjack wrote:I think I must misunderstand your explanation because I can't see anything special about the way that your language handles functions (apart from the idea of handling function calls as threads - which seems inefficient and to have potential synchronization problems).

You do have a point about the inefficiency of it. What I'm wanting to do is have both synchronous and asynchronous calling methods. 'call' and 'hang' in particular are to be used for asynchronous execution; where 'call' starts a function in a new thread and hang perhaps creates a barrier of sorts for execution to finish.

iansjack wrote:You have some extra verbiage, like "call" and "do:", which other languages manage very well without; I can't see what they bring to the party.

The use of the 'do' keyword in the example is not a tradional usage of the 'do' keyword. It wraps and labels a macro instruction with it's own closure and scope. This can be very useful for metaprogramming and it greatly simplifies parsing.

MessiahAndrw wrote:For inspiration, you might want to look up the Go language with how they use channels and the 'go' keyword.

SoulofDeity wrote:*) While mainly intended for use as a shell, I want to be able to do complex things things like stream manipulation, set manipulation, code manipulation, database indexing, signal handling, and ui creation as easily as possible to make it suitable for prototyping. Rather than using functions (or in my case, macros) they should all be integrated into the language itself.

Nable wrote:

SoulofDeity wrote:*) While mainly intended for use as a shell, I want to be able to do complex things things like stream manipulation, set manipulation, code manipulation, database indexing, signal handling, and ui creation as easily as possible to make it suitable for prototyping. Rather than using functions (or in my case, macros) they should all be integrated into the language itself.

It looks like Tcl/Tk.

SoulofDeity wrote:Here's an idea I just came up with that I don't think has been done before; multi-conditional switch/case statements.

Code: Select all

    when i is
    {
      == '0' do
      {
      }
      <= '10' or
      >= '10' do
      {
      }
    }