OpenEuphoria

Re: Minimal language VS Maximal language

• Posted by Raude Riwal <rauder at THMULTI.COM> Feb 17, 1999
• 411 views

If you like Forth, you could also have a look at PostScript. It is more that
a
simple Page description language, it is a true programming language . It is
stack-based, with some file access, user input and so on. You define your
own functions and reuse them later. like this:
%!
/mt {moveto} def
/lt {lineto} def
/rl {rlineto} def
/rm {rmoveto} def
/mm { 2.835 mul } def
/s {show} def

...and so on. So if your printer has enough mem and a good cpu (and the
output is to be printed), it can do the computing in place of your computer!

I personnaly find that also fun ... and sexy 
 - if you'd like to try but haven't such a printer you can get Ghostscript
(a free PostScript shell, for many platforms)  at  www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
 ----------
From: Grape Vine
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Minimal language VS Maximal language
Date: Wednesday 17 February 1999 02:23

If i remember right Fouth does just that....I loved it...you made your
own commands from your own commands that were based on a very simple set
of commands...if i remember right you could also change that set of
commands....Ill send you MVP Fourth if you want...i only used it to play
around with cuz i found E just a month or so after i found it..

Grape


>Date:         Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:42:32 +0100
>Reply-To:     Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
>From:         Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at XS4ALL.NL>
>Subject:      Minimal language VS Maximal language
>To:           EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
>
>I had this weird silly idea in my head, for some time, but now, after
this little discussing I start seeing more point in it.
>What if a language was really minimal (as in Robert's example), but
allowed the parser to be modified during the parsing.
>In other words, one of the constructs would allow complete new syntax,
would be able to change scope rules, or to write
>a language without variables. In other words, like with classes you
have data-specific routines, what about data-specific
>syntax ? Or routine-specific ? Or scope-specific ? Etc. Just a silly
idea that popped to my mind.
>
>This case a language could really be 'the tool' for all kinds of
problems.
>Nevertheless, performance goes a long way, I guess. And we are capable
of doing this already, we could, in theory, write
>an interpreter/compiler in any language and write an
interpreter/compiler in that language again, and nested on in that way.
>In other words, I meant a minimal language, where only the syntax for
adding new syntax would be a very strong flexible
>syntax.
>
>Not something I think Robert would want to add ? I'm not even sure if I
want him too, but an interesting idea IMHO.
>
>Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
>.... Mailto://nieuwen at xs4all.nl
>.... Http://www.xs4all.nl/~nieuwen
>.... Uin://9389920


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com