In a message dated 7/6/2009 11:46:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stvrtg@gmail.com writes:
..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough to English, then Neil's offering: "PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE COLON CHARACTER IN THE..." makes the substantial point, in addition to being esoterically funny.>>
--------------
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English).
I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth.
Will Johnson
************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn.
I don't know that BASIC in any of its flavors lines up well with the functional requirements needed for easy (compact, easy to read, easy to learn how to program) template structure and so forth.
If you'd like to propose a BASIC syntax for the tools we need, that might make the argument more cogent and viable. Of necessity you need to base that on a BASIC which is freeware and portable.
Of course you've hit the nail right on the head. I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people have to learn just to code for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an existing language, so that some people can jump right in with both feet and others, who want to, can pick up an instruction manual and start stabbing about.
If you'd like to propose a BASIC syntax for the tools we need, that might make the argument more cogent and viable. Of necessity you need to base that on a BASIC which is freeware and portable.
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 12:24 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn.
I don't know that BASIC in any of its flavors lines up well with the functional requirements needed for easy (compact, easy to read, easy to learn how to program) template structure and so forth.
If you'd like to propose a BASIC syntax for the tools we need, that might make the argument more cogent and viable. Of necessity you need to base that on a BASIC which is freeware and portable.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of course you've hit the nail right on the head. I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people have to learn just to code for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an existing language, so that some people can jump right in with both feet and others, who want to, can pick up an instruction manual and start stabbing about.
If you'd like to propose a BASIC syntax for the tools we need, that might make the argument more cogent and viable. Of necessity you need to base that on a BASIC which is freeware and portable.
Um. Raw BASIC is not well structured to do the specific text processing we're looking for.
You'd have to build templates up from raw code, without library tools, accomplish what we do with the templates tools now.
Not sure I'm exactly following that. Are you suggesting creating methods with inputs and outputs out of underlying templates and then allowing those methods to be called directly, so essentially building a higher-level language out of these templates as the tools ?
You'd have to build templates up from raw code, without library tools, accomplish what we do with the templates tools now.
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
?Of course you've hit the nail right on the head. I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people
have to learn just to code
for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an existing language, so that
some people can jump right
in with both feet and others, who want to, can pick up an instruction manual
and start stabbing about.
If you'd like to propose a BASIC syntax for the tools we need, that might make the argument more cogent and viable. ?Of necessity you need to base that on a BASIC which is freeware and portable.
Um. Raw BASIC is not well structured to do the specific text processing we're looking for.
You'd have to build templates up from raw code, without library tools, accomplish what we do with the templates tools now.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English).
I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth.
The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l: that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python, JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested experiments with sandboxing each, etc.
Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn*
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English).
I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth.
The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l: that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python, JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested experiments with sandboxing each, etc.
Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn*
Steve
Can we take this discussion back to wikitech-l now, please, and focus on specific, concrete proposals for syntax reform and/or language replacement?
-- Neil
Um.. no we're not.
<<Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn*>>
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 12:13 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn.
The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the
argument
whatsoever. ?I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English).
I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth.
The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l: that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python, JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested experiments with sandboxing each, etc.
Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn*
Steve
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Um.. no we're not.
<<Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn*>>
Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as an alternative to the current state of affairs?
If so, could you please post it to wikitech-l?
-- Neil
My entire point Neil was simply that, "short-time-to-learn" should also be a consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already known* source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which requires that every command be learned again without any prior foundation.? I am not a subscriber to tech.? I don't think I want to be.
<<Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as an alternative to the current state of affairs?>>
-----Original Message----- From: Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 2:51 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Um.. no we're not.
<<Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn*>>
Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as an alternative to the current state of affairs?
If so, could you please post it to wikitech-l?
-- Neil
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/8 wjhonson@aol.com:
My entire point Neil was simply that, "short-time-to-learn" should also be a consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already known* source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which requires that every command be learned again without any prior foundation.? I am not a subscriber to tech.? I don't think I want to be.
The point is that discussion of the matter is much more likely to be effective there rather than here, because there is specifically where the official discussion is being conducted!
It's an open list, anyone can subscribe to it or read the archive.
- d.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:02 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that discussion of the matter is much more likely to be effective there rather than here, because there is specifically where the official discussion is being conducted!
It's an open list, anyone can subscribe to it or read the archive.
Maybe I'm being too nasty, but I feel like the people who should participate in the wikitech-l discussion are, or at least, were, participating in it. Would you really want all this noise over there?
Honestly, the question of which language to use is 90% practicality: which language can we actually get an interpreter for, that is secure and fast enough. Preferences for one style of syntax over another don't really enter into it.
Steve
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
My entire point Neil was simply that, "short-time-to-learn" should also be a consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already known* source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which requires that every command be learned again without any prior foundation.? I am not a subscriber to tech.? I don't think I want to be.
Wikitech-l is undoubtedly the right forum for this discussion, so we really should continue this discussion there.
I find it rather difficult to understand exactly what you want here. Could you please give an example, even a rough one, of the sort of syntax you are proposing?
For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial example:
{{#switch: {{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }} | error = that's an error | correct = {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} = {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }}}}
in your new notation?
-- Neil
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Neil Harrisusenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
<snip>
Wikitech-l is undoubtedly the right forum for this discussion, so we really should continue this discussion there.
It would be nice is discussion of the non-technical aspects continued here and some of it fed back to wiki-tech-l, such as the pleas for a manual and help pages that are well-written and people can understand.
I find it rather difficult to understand exactly what you want here. Could you please give an example, even a rough one, of the sort of syntax you are proposing?
<snip>
I think he wants to reduce the number of curly brackets.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Neil Harrisusenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
I find it rather difficult to understand exactly what you want here. Could you please give an example, even a rough one, of the sort of syntax you are proposing?
For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial example:
{{#switch: {{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }} | error = that's an error | correct = {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} = {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }}}}
in your new notation?
Oh, this is so easy in MOO code[1], it's not funny:
{{`tostr(args[1], " + ", args[2], " = ", args[1] + args[2]) ! ANY => "that's an error"'}}
(yes that's a backquote at the start and a normal one at the end. Semantics of "+" may differ from what you intended.)
In VB.NET:
{{Try Return Arg1 & " + " & Arg2 & " = " & Arg1 + Arg2 Catch e as Exception Return "that's an error" End Try}}
(Ok the typing is probably wrong.)
Steve
Steve [1] http://www.armory.com/~gergen/ProgrammersManual.html