OpenEuphoria

1. Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cow??r.com> May 29, 2008
• 714 views

Jason Gade wrote:
> 
> 
> It's not like I'm against /every/ feature, I'm trying to make that clear. And
> I'm not so much in the "bloating the interpreter" camp or in the "slowing down
> the interpreter" camp because these days it just doesn't really matter that
> much. Clear code is far more important.
> 

I am in the do not slow down the interpreter camp and the clear code camp. I do
not care too much if the executable grows a bit.

> Maybe it's just pie-in-the-sky idealism, but for me it has more to do with the
> overall look and feel of the language, which features /should/ be included
> because
> they fit the philosophy of the language and which are just the syntactic sugar
> flavor-of-the-week.
> 

I am not against syntactic sugar as a lot of times the syntactic sugar is nice.
Many people consider the for loop syntactic sugar:

for a = 1 to length(lines) do
   --body
end for

That's simply sugar for:

integer a
a = 1
while a < length(lines) do
    -- body
    a = a + 1
end while

What I am for is not to reduce 2 character here or there, but sugar above is
great stuff. It means I (the programmer) have to work less to achieve the same
goal. That's my end desire. Am I lazy? I guess one could say that, but if you
have a ditch to dig will you choose a spoon, a shovel or back hoe?

Now, I am also in the camp that says let's try to have one way of doing things.
I say try because, you could use a for or while loop to accomplish the same
thing, but each has their own benefit. They are not duplicating functionality. I
have used languages that have added every little new buzz word out there and they
are so complex it's no fun to program in. After all, I do like my programming
job, why? I think it's fun.

> I think there should be a compelling reason to add anything --feature or new
> built-in-- to the interpreter, and a broad consensus as well. Not just
> "because
> it's cool."
>

Again, can you please tell me what has been added to the interpreter "because
it's cool" ? In your opinion, I am not asking for fact, simply your opinion.
 
> Same rant, different day I guess.
 
> Heh, for true minimalism and performance I guess I can always just stick with
> C.
>

Hm, C has goto, right  (added for goto fans, sorry, could not resist)

> But allow me to make a comparison -- in some ways, going from C (a beautiful
> language, IMO, missing some features) to C++ (not so beautiful, lots of
> little-used
> features) introduced a lot of power and expressiveness at the expense of a lot
> of clunkiness and ugliness. And some missing features remain missing, or at
> least non standard. I'd like to avoid that here.
> 

Hm, I hardly think C to C++ is a valid comparison of Eu 3.1 to Eu 4.0.

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com

3. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by MBianchi <mebian at ?i?calinet.it> May 29, 2008
• 684 views

After reading all the threads regarding the changes in Eu 4.0, I'd like to add
my 1/2 cent.

Please, forgive me, I'm really new to Eu, even if I went back and forth from it
for several times now, so my doubt is *for sure* a naive one, and my english too
bad.

I was first attracted to Eu for speed, and for the ability to use an interpreter
*and* a real compiler, but the most important feature of the language soon became
its 'devotion' to sequences.

This made me (erroneously?) think that Eu could have its place in vector
languages, like APL, J, K, Q etc. etc., with its own character and extentions
toward procedural languages, but nevertheless in the array languages pool.

Reading past threads I noticed that Rob himself had a deep experience with APL,
so some sort of inheritance of good ideas from it could be a supposition even
more reasonable.

In all recent discussions I saw on Euforum, I did not see any proposal for
better sequence ops, or some improvements on sequencing in itself though, but
many, reasonable or not, I'm not in the position of expressing an honest opinion,
about procedural structures.

Just out of curiosity, am I totally wrong in thinking Eu in the vector language
family, or are Eu sequences already at the best we can achieve (really, no flame
intended at all), or ...?

TIA, and

Cheers.
MBianchi

5. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at yahoo.?o?> May 29, 2008
• 673 views

Thoughts inspired by Jason and Jeremy's discussion...

Things in life are often a trade off...

Programmers develop habits as well as use idioms of a particular language.
Working with a small team of programmers on a huge project I can often tell
which member of my team wrote a particular section of code by how it's
written.  If I got my way, my ability to do this would lessen which is a loss.

So what am I looking to get to compensate for this loss?

I'm looking for a cleaner code that is easier to read with understanding.
The quicker you get comprehension the less you are stressed.  Making the
programmers job easier.  Idioms shared make comprehension easier too.

You can achieve much of this by the minimalist approach.

Take GOTO's verses structured code as a first example.  GOTO allows a 
programmer to express themselves very individually (making it easier for
me to tell who wrote the code) while structured code isn't so individual.
The structure tends to enforce a likely similar looking code.  And it's
generally quicker to comprehend (especially in a long block of code.)
Structures have a beginning so you know you're in a structure.  Even if the
code scrolls of the end of the page, you already know the eventuality.

With GOTO all you see at the beginning of a loop is a label.  That label
doesn't tell you, you are about to enter a loop.  Your comprehension will
require you to examine more code.

You could also minimize by taken out the structure, just use GOTO's
everywhere.  It's largely a matter of taste, but I prefer using structured
code.  YMMV.

I'd like to talk about loops.  You may think I'm just in love with my idea
(which I admit is partly true) but there are good reasons for my proposal.
I don't believe any on this forum will have any trouble judging the merits
or speaking their mind about it.  Some may even oppose an idea not for the
idea itself but because of who proposes it (which I think is a rather sad
thing.)

It's been noted that FOR loops are an addition to Euphoria which originally
had just while loops.  I've used FOR loops so much that I don't give it a
thought usually about whether they should be included or not, but thinking
minimally (don't include what you don't need) I realize there's a good
reason for not having them.  Let me start with the while loop and get back
to the for.

while (1)
   ...
end while

I would claim that quicker comprehension occurs with this construct...

Loop
   ...
End Loop

Both are infinite loops.  Yes, it's not much quicker to comprehend, we're
not dolts after all, but after examining thousands of lines of code, by 
3am I betcha that it becomes a bit more significant.

I would also claim (without support, just my INTJ assertiveness again) that
comprehension is better when Loop is used to describe Loop, rather than any
other _____ is a loop.  Call me crazy.

Now, how about getting out of the loop?  Some language provide a plethora
of ways and are thinking of new ways all the time no doubt (programmers are
such a creative bunch after all.)  The fact that sometimes you need to get
out of loops and the beginning, the end, the middle has led to repeat, until,
etc.  But for a minimalist the answer is right there, IF.  You need something
like EXIT to be used with the IF, but IF eliminates the need for any 
additional unneeded keywords because you can put the IF test anywhere in the
loop; beginning, middle and end.  Exit tells you immediately that you are
leaving the loop you are currently in.  Exit 12, on the other hand, is an
offramp in New Jersey I think!

What about FOR.  What does FOR add to the game that LOOP doesn't give you
already?  FOR gives you an INDEX.  What a great idea.  But perhaps
if a minimalist were trying to add an implicit INDEX he or she might have
realized you don't need to add FOR at all!

Loop
   ...
End Loop

There it is, did you see it?  Looks like anticomprehesion time, doesn't it?
Never fear, I'll get back to that in a moment.

FOR gives you more than just INDEX.  You can tell where to start, where to
end and how much to increment by.

For LOOP to have a start you'd have to do something like this...

Loop from 5

End Loop

Well why not?  This also gives us something else...

Loop
  ...
End Loop

...under the covers can become...

:Loop
   ...
GOTO Loop

And now quicker comprehension because the lack of from indicates no INDEX
at all.  It does however require the idiom  Loop from 1, but I don't think
that's such a big deal.  Idioms foster comprehension too.

Other languages use STEP where Euphoria uses BY...  I really like BY.  I
don't know why, I just do.  So we keep it...

Loop from 10 by 5

As long a we understand the INDEX is implicit (with only Loop for loops that
comprehension will come rathe quickly.  We don't have any other type of loop
to cause confusion.)

But how about the end of the loop?  With FOR I specify the end in the
declaration.  We minimalist don't need it.  We already have IF (cond) Exit.

Again I would restate that use of a single loop construct would make
comprehension quicker and would be reinforced with each subsequent use.

I stated my case for the two issues I've brought up before (somebody got
a fire extinguisher handy???)

Am I in love with my ideas.  Sure, why not?  Can I live with rejection.
Yeah, I suppose.  I'll just go into a corner and sulk for awhile.... 

The biggest problem is that taken up my proposal requires change.  Change
is not easy.  No, better to say, change is hard.  One of the really annoying
things about me is that time often proves me right; by then the sun has
cooled, the earth has left it's orbit and the guys I was fighting with (in 
the friendly fashion that programmers do) has left the company.

But it's not about me.  So please consider the merits regardless of the
source.

I would also argue that a minimalist approach makes for a better compiler
or interpreter but we'd all agree on that, so where's the fun?

7. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ckleste??com> May 29, 2008
• 687 views

ken mortenson wrote:
> 
> Loop
>    ...
> End Loop

This is a cool idea. All our loop constructs can be replaced by one simple

Loop

End Loop

Loop [from x by y] -- default is from 1 by 1 and optional
  -- put code here to emulate "for" loop
  if Loop = 10 then exit end if 
  -- code here for "while" loops
End Loop

(Can Loop have this dual purpose, to start a Loop AND be its counter?)

So, instead of

for i=1 to 20 do
  ...code
end for

we do

Loop
  ...code
  if Loop = 20 then exit end if
End Loop

Instead of

q = x
while atom(q) do
  ...code
  q = x
end while

q = x
Loop
  if atom(q) then exit end if
  ...code
  q = x
End Loop

Loop..End Loop is a teensie bit more verbose, but it minimalizes the strain
on my brain... one loop construct instead of 2+.

This was just a fun thought experiment. Please don't claim that I'm adding
Loop to Euphoria. 8)

9. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cow?ar.co?> May 29, 2008
• 686 views

c.k.lester wrote:
> 
> 
> This is a cool idea. All our loop constructs can be replaced by one simple

And millions of lines of code broken.
 
> 
> Loop [from x by y] -- default is from 1 by 1 and optional
>   -- put code here to emulate "for" loop
>   if Loop = 10 then exit end if 
>   -- code here for "while" loops
> End Loop
>

The above loop is simple but now go to something like

for a = 1 to length(lines) do ....

Now you are evaluating the length of lines over and over and over again.
Granted, length is stored in the sequence but some other calculation.
 
If that's what you want, you can do it via

while 1 do
end while

If you have trouble typing that, you can use an editor that will expand loop to
while 1 do.. Most decent editors do that.

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com

11. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by Mike777 <anon4321 at ?mai?.com> May 29, 2008
• 666 views

ken mortenson wrote:
> 
> while (1)
>    ...
> end while
> 
> I would claim that quicker comprehension occurs with this construct...
> 
> Loop
>    ...
> End Loop
> 
> Both are infinite loops.  Yes, it's not much quicker to comprehend, we're
> not dolts after all, but after examining thousands of lines of code, by 
> 3am I betcha that it becomes a bit more significant.

Incorrect.  The lack, at the beginning, of the indicator as to finality means I
must open up a stack in my brain as I see Loop.  And I can't pull from that stack
until perhaps much later.  Bad idea.

> Now, how about getting out of the loop?  

> But for a minimalist the answer is right there, IF.  You need something
> like EXIT to be used with the IF, but IF eliminates the need for any 
> additional unneeded keywords because you can put the IF test anywhere in the
> loop; beginning, middle and end.  

Your beginning and my beginning are different.  I want it at **THE** beginning. 
Not on the next line, indented or not.  I want to comprehend as much of the logic
that is being proposed, as quickly as possible, without having to span additional
lines (sometimes pages and pages of lines) until I get to a test intended to
allow for exit.

Even if you *allow* such specification at the very beginning, it sounds like you
would also *allow* it many lines later.  All arguments that rail against GOTO
rail against separating the exit test from the definition.  I can do that now
with a while(1) loop.  I don't want to HAVE to do it for all loops.

> Exit tells you immediately that you are
> leaving the loop you are currently in.  

For my compiler (read: brain) to do anything "immediately" I must see the
conditional test.  If that doesn't appear until many lines of code later, I can't
do it *immediately*.

If this idea had merit, all loops would be while(1) loops, which we already
have, and are avoided unless necessary by virtually everybody.

> But it's not about me.  So please consider the merits regardless of the
> source.

I see no merit, no matter the source.

Mike

13. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at ??hoo.com> May 29, 2008
• 681 views

CChris wrote:

> Frankly, your approach reminds me of Fortran (any flavour). 

Wow.  That's not a response I expected.  Although defining 5=6 in Fortran
did make for interesting debug sessions with friends.

> Its superiority in some specific areas of programming has survived programming
> concepts and hardware changes. Fortran compilers have been the first to
> introduce
> some advanced features like statistical reshuffling of code to optimise its
> speed, etc.
> 
> Great and granted.
 
> So you'd get the do i=1,n,step ... end loop, the arithmetic 3 way if and a few
> other minimalist thingies.

I believe you are confusing terse syntax with minimalism (you are free to
disagree, my opinions and assertions are just vibrations in the wind.)

> But if I found Fortran comfortable to program with, I'd use Fortran, nand I
> don't. I even downloaded OpenWatcom F77 compiler, just to try my hand. Good
> for stuff where speed is more importan than maintainability. But I'd say
> hardly
> better.
> 
> CChris

Chris, with all due respect (this is not presymbolic language folks, when I
say with respect it has profound meaning to me) I believe you've just set
up a straw man argument.

1) Only fools would program in FORTRAN these days.
2) Ken's ideas are just repackaged FORTRAN.
3) Ken is a fool.

Thanks for playing.

Am I being unfair in my assessment?

15. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at yahoo?c?m> May 29, 2008
• 679 views

Jeremy Cowgar wrote:

> We have had enough arguments on the forum for a while. Can we just discuss
> programming
> issues? There are people here trying to solve problems, trying to ask
> questions
> and get answers, i.e. what the forum is designed to do but their messages are
> lost in ones like this.

I agree with your sentiment Jeremy.  I'm not trying to start another fight.
It just seems weird that my proposal would be likened to FORTRAN.  This is
a deep and profound misunderstanding of minimalist goals which are best
embodied in that universally recognized stupid fool, Albert Einstein...

...as simple as possible, no simpler.

My thoughts may not be welcome, yet still be of value.

I've had bosses that only liked an idea if it was their idea.  In one
case, I'd have to take him to lunch, fill him with Hennesseys and by
the end of lunch he was trying to convince me to do my idea because
by then it was his idea.  Life is weird and doesn't work the way you'd
expect.  If only we had the source code to humanity, perhaps we could
fix it?

I don't want to fight.  I don't want my ideas labeled stupid when they
are reasonable either.  This proposal is a modest one.  How well it does
will be a great indicator of how welcome more profound ideas of mine will
be accepted.  I'm not going to lose any sleep if nobody likes it.  But
the ways it is or will be attacked is very revealing to me.

I can face a thousand challenger to an idea, but only the one that is 
truly reasonable is going to have an impact.  I'm not attacking the
messenger but I'm not so sure others will have that same restraint.

Judge for yourself of course.  No, I do not want to fight.

17. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at ya?oo.c?m> May 29, 2008
• 675 views
• Last edited May 30, 2008

ken mortenson wrote:

my bad...
> LineLength=length(lines) a=1
> Loop a+=1
>   if (a>LineLength) Exit
> End Loop
> 
> Yes, we have an explicit var instead of an implicit one.  I don't have a
> problem with that.

19. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at y?hoo.com> May 29, 2008
• 689 views
• Last edited May 30, 2008

Jeremy Cowgar wrote:

> Euphoria is not a minimalist language but you are proposing that it be. The
> people here do not want a minimalist language. They like Euphoria syntax. Be
> it wrong or right in your eyes, that is Euphoria and that's why people are
> here
> using it, because they like that.

Jeremy, I think your a fair individual.  You may be surprised to find that
I'm not really a minimimist either.  I do appreciate some of it's concepts.

The truth is, I don't want to give up FOR loops either.  I've been using
them faithfully since before GWBasic.  6 years before actually.

> I am not telling you to leave, even if I wanted to (which I do not), I have
> no authority to do that. But I can suggest that if so far what you have
> outlined
> is what you think the one true language is, you may be wasting your time here.
> I say that to save you time, not to be mean or cruel. 

Well, that's about the kindest boot in the ass I've ever gotten.  Don't
worry, I don't lose sight of my goals.  I'm not sure why I'm here, other
than community.  Yes, I'd like my vision of the IDE and compiler to be
realized and I've fallen in love with sequences (which is a hard love,
APL requires a new keyboard.)

I have no delussions that Euphoria will somehow morph into my vision.
Sometimes you have to expose your ideas to the world to see the response.
I want to thank all those that have sent me letters of encouragement,
it was... nice, surprising and touching.  I would not betray names, that
wouldn't be right.  I have an out of style send of honor.

I will probably test the waters a bit longer.  It would only be fair
that those with need have the opportunity of such new experiences.

21. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at yahoo?c?m> May 29, 2008
• 684 views
• Last edited May 30, 2008

Matt Lewis wrote:
> 
> ken mortenson wrote:
> > 
> > Chris, with all due respect (this is not presymbolic language folks, when I
> > say with respect it has profound meaning to me) I believe you've just set
> > up a straw man argument.
> > 
> > 1) Only fools would program in FORTRAN these days.
> > 2) Ken's ideas are just repackaged FORTRAN.
> > 3) Ken is a fool.
> > 
> > Thanks for playing.
> > 
> > Am I being unfair in my assessment?
> 
> I would have characterized his assessment a bit differently:
> 
> 1) CChris doesn't like to code in FORTRAN
> 2) Ken's ideas somehow remind CChris of FORTRAN
> 3) CChris wouldn't like to program in a language that followed Ken's ideas
> 
> Matt

I stand corrected.  Thanks Matt.

23. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at agricu?ture.gouv.?r> May 30, 2008
• 739 views

ken mortenson wrote:
> 
> CChris wrote:
> 
> > Frankly, your approach reminds me of Fortran (any flavour). 
> 
> Wow.  That's not a response I expected.  Although defining 5=6 in Fortran
> did make for interesting debug sessions with friends.
> 

Interesting...

> > Its superiority in some specific areas of programming has survived
> > programming
> > concepts and hardware changes. Fortran compilers have been the first to
> > introduce
> > some advanced features like statistical reshuffling of code to optimise its
> > speed, etc.
> > 
> > Great and granted.
>  
> > So you'd get the do i=1,n,step ... end loop, the arithmetic 3 way if and a
> > few
> > other minimalist thingies.
> 
> I believe you are confusing terse syntax with minimalism (you are free to
> disagree, my opinions and assertions are just vibrations in the wind.)
> 

How do you get minimalism in a language without terse syntax, and many lines to
implement the simplest construct?
Admittedly, a language may have terse syntax while not being minimalistic - I
thin to APL.

You'll admit the border area is quie blurred, unless you have precise
definitions, which it would help to state explicitly.

> > But if I found Fortran comfortable to program with, I'd use Fortran, nand I
> > don't. I even downloaded OpenWatcom F77 compiler, just to try my hand. Good
> > for stuff where speed is more importan than maintainability. But I'd say
> > hardly
> > better.
> > 
> > CChris
> 
> Chris, with all due respect (this is not presymbolic language folks, when I
> say with respect it has profound meaning to me) I believe you've just set
> up a straw man argument.
> 
> 1) Only fools would program in FORTRAN these days.
> 2) Ken's ideas are just repackaged FORTRAN.
> 3) Ken is a fool.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Am I being unfair in my assessment?

Not unfair, but quite off the spot.

My thoughts are more along this:
1/ Only speed freaks, or people who need the speed for specific applications,
program in Fortran today, in spite of its being much harder to maintain. And they
are by no means fools, since they are able to maintain that.
2/ Ken has been/is/was closr to this school of programming
3/ Ken's experience is different from mine, and from most Eu users' as well.
Even though my programming experience is probably quite different from most Eu
users' as well.

CChris

25. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at y?hoo?com> May 30, 2008
• 672 views

CChris wrote:

> How do you get minimalism in a language without terse syntax, and many lines
> to implement the simplest construct?

Chris, I'm not just glad you asked this question I'm ecstatic.  My cable
modem is flaking our on me at the moment, so I hope I can respond in one shot.

There's a lot of confusion being expressed about what minimalism is and
frankly, I think different people have a different definition.  But for me
it's embodied in the phrase that some may have difficulty parsing...

...as simple as possible, no simpler.

I don't hold completely to the first part.  To me, 'as possible' is not
to be taken to extreme.  For me, the no simpler part is the deal braker.

Regarding terseness, some people think minimalist refers to key strokes.
It doesn't.  It refers to functionality.  Being able to read your own code
a week later also plays into it.  So do I want to eliminate FOR loops?

Never.  They are very practical and easy to comprehend.  But the most
important point from a minimalist perspective is they do add something
that is near and dear to a minimalists heart... they reduce clutter!

Perhaps some will say I'm not a pure minimalist and perhaps they are right.

But I hold the principle of less clutter in very high regard.

Take for example strings.  VB strings are horrible.  You don't want to do
string manipulation in a loop.  The performance impact is incredible.  How
do I know?  Because I've written a string class that I use in situations
that require performance and it gives me about a 20x increase in speed.

A minimalist keeps his focus on results.  How am I able to day in and day
out produce over a thousand lines of good code in VB?  I couldn't if the
language didn't have sufficient capability that I was constantly having to
invent the functionality.  I also couldn't do it if my job involved
interface work all the time, which involves research; an entirely different
thing from being creative in a language or writing business logic.

Give me functionality.  Don't put roadblocks in my way.  One roadblock that
reduces my efficiency as a programmer is twelve ways to do essentially the
same thing.

I'm a very safe driver, but I don't have to think much to do it.  I've been
described by programmers I work with as writing rock solid, bullet proof
code.  I don't have to expend an extreme amount of concentration to do that
either.  Because my tool is comfortable and has sufficient functionality in
most cases.  Where it fails, I try to create a solution, like my string
class.

I'm not the fastest coder.  I worked with some phenominal people that make
me look like a sloth where lines of code produced daily are concerned.

But for me (and YMMV) being a practical minimalist makes me very 
efficient.  I like that.

I have another expression I use.  Supermen make bad programmers.  Always
trying to be smarter than the other guy.  Writing tricky code.  My code
is hardly ever tricky.  I'm writing to an audience of other professionals
that I have a high regard for.  So I try to write as clear as I am able.

Terseness often makes code harder to read.  So I like it simple, but not
too simple.  In this case I'm not specifically refering to functionality.

I hope I've given you some insight into my thought process.

27. Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at yahoo??om> May 30, 2008
• 688 views

ken mortenson wrote:

> I would add Loop...End Loop to Euphoria, because we already have it's
> complete functionality covered by WHILE and FOR (this is the practical
> minimalist in me kicking in!)

This is a typo folks, I would NOT add Loop which the second part should
have made clear regardless of my brain fart.  Don't get excited.