[e-lang] Announcing E 0.8.30d
sean.zuzu at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 18:30:20 EDT 2004
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:40:27 -0700, Dean Tribble <tribble at e-dean.com> wrote:
> Hear! hear!
> Or is that hear(), hear()?
> If we are going to have new syntax, I want lambdas with the cleanliness
> of smalltalk blocks :)
banging away at an E-like/actors implementation in ruby, i quite agree
w/r/t lambdas & blocks.
perhaps i should devote more time to examining squeak-E. though
smalltalk/squeak is still largely opaque to me. (but reading java
makes my eyes hurt.)
a/t/m i am racking my brain to elegantly transform objects into actors
with closures to fit carl hewitt's description of using continuations
(so that actors can automatically coordinate context themselves
without relying on returning hard values until the very end).
however, as my original intention is simply to program in data-flow
rather than control-flow, i will probably implement a unix-inspired
pipe operand to easily define continuations as unix pipes & filters do
> marcs wrote:
> >Since I haven't explictly stated my opinion about foo::blah and foo.blah
> >yet, let me just go ahead and state it even though people probably know what
> >I'm going to say.
> >Before I return to my harpie role, let me just admit that I think the
> >currying is really clever. A couple questions: What would "interp.exitAtTop"
> >look like in a debugger? Does it present any interesting persistence
> >Anyway, it's clever. Fine. However...
> >Years have passed since the last time I felt that E suffered from a shortage
> >of syntax. E does not need more syntax for every clever thing that you might
> >want to do, as long as there is some way to do the clever thing with the
> >current syntax. The last time we tried to do properties with yet more clever
> >syntax, I discovered that I forgot the clever syntax if I walked away from
> >the language for more than 30 days. I was then confused when I looked at the
> >puzzling stuff someone (often I myself) had written. I can't help believing
> >that this reaction will be true in spades for people just starting to learn
> >the language, people who foolishly pick up a chunk of source written by one
> >of the "old timers", hoping to have an educational experience, and finding
> >yet another hurdle rather than another assist.
> >Trying to invent a purpose for every piece of punctuation on the keyboard is
> >a game for languages working on Version 3, with a couple million programmers
> >who already have the sunk cost of having learned everything else already.
> >Then, you don't care how much junk the occasional programmer or the new
> >programmer has to put up with. Let 'em suffer; saving the million existing
> >programmers a few keystrokes is more important (actually I don't believe
> >that either, but at least it would seem like something you could argue
> >Let us compare and contrast this fascination with yet more syntax. Compare
> >it with the really new stuff for Voluntary Oblivious Compliance (about which
> >I will write more here in a week or two). VOC falls outside this category of
> >"yet more ways to do the same old thing". Had it proven, or were it to
> >prove, that we needed new stuff inside E to support it, I would embrace new
> >syntax to present it to the user. I would even go so far as to say, if we
> >needed syntax for VOC, I would even endorse using "::", though as a personal
> >thing I find this one of the most objectionable pieces of syntax, for any
> >purpose, invented since we got rid of the APL keyboard.
> >>As seen in the section "Experimental eventual property access
> >>syntax", the
> >>syntax I adopted is:
> >> expr <- ::name
> >> expr <- ::&name
> >e-lang mailing list
> >e-lang at mail.eros-os.org
> e-lang mailing list
> e-lang at mail.eros-os.org
More information about the e-lang