×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

gag me with a shift button (5, Informative)

decora (1710862) | about 10 months ago | (#44047909)

i := find([ 1, 2, 3 ]): _ > r

yeah. no. thanks but no thanks.

Re:gag me with a shift button (4, Insightful)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 10 months ago | (#44047967)

Still looks like a step forward from Perl.

why dont we just use chinese characters? (1, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | about 10 months ago | (#44048137)

look if we are going to have these bizarre punctuation marks everywhere, then why not just start using chinese characters, that actually mean what we are talking about?

"oh because nobody can read them"

nobody can read _?@$$$ __ *&* anyways. but at least chinese has some meaning already attached to characters, like

look at

it means download

its literally the cjaracter for "down" followed by a character for a wagon/cart (top view.. two wheels, see?) and a thing next to it. (down transport)

that makes a hell of a lot more sense than some bizarro perl bullshit and it only takes up two spaces.

fuck me slashdot cant display unicode (4, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | about 10 months ago | (#44048141)

oh well

Re:fuck me slashdot cant display unicode (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | about 10 months ago | (#44048805)

Amusingly this is somewhat the answer to your question - most programming languages will avoid unicode characters because it then runs a greater risk of transmission of code between systems because unfortunately there are still all too many applications, sites and programs that don't properly support unicode which means bugs could arise in source code for no reason other than loading it up, manipulating it, and saving it in the wrong text editor.

But I agree, it's a sad state of affairs that we can't rely on the existence of unicode even now.

Re:fuck me slashdot cant display unicode (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 10 months ago | (#44049477)

This is one of my favourite things about .Net. All strings are unicode (utf-16) by default. You don't have to do any fancy trickery to get the language to interpret your string as UTF, and all the functions (assuming no bugs) work properly for international characters. In most other languages, you have to remember to precede the string with some character to signify that it's unicode, and the strange things start happening when you mix unicode and non-unicode strings, and have the functions don't work properly with unicode strings to begin with. Same thing goes with base-10 decimal numbers. It's a native type. You don't have to import some library and a= b.add(c) every time you want to add a couple numbers (gets really messy with more complex math).

Re:why dont we just use chinese characters? (2)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 10 months ago | (#44048515)

Chinise characters in Slashdot, really? When do you think you're living ? 21st century ?

Re:why dont we just use chinese characters? (4, Informative)

dintech (998802) | about 10 months ago | (#44048519)

Been there, done that. Look specifically at APL [wikipedia.org] in the 60s. Functions were represented by single characters which you needed a special keyboard to type. For example, instead of typing the string floor, instead it was represented by what is now Unicode Character 'LEFT FLOOR' (U+230A) [fileformat.info] and required a special terminal to reproduce them. This limited where you could input and also display APL code.

One evolution of APL was the A+ [wikipedia.org] language leading finally to K [wikipedia.org] in the 90s. Having these special character requirements was too much of a pain in APL so all special characters were replaced by tuples of ASCII characters that were already common. In K, 'floor' was now expressed as _: which is no easier to guess the meaning of if you don't know the syntax, but now you need only standard ASCII to represent it.

'Son of K' was Q [wikipedia.org] which comes full circle replacing _: with the keyword floor. Iverson's argument in developing APL was that the terseness achieved by using notoation (single characters) meant that you could express concepts more conciesely. This in turn meant that complex concepts were easier to visualise. There's a lot to be said for this, but I think Q now provides a much happier medium between the two perspectives.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048255)

shut your mouth when grownups are talking. ;) /what's wrong with perl? It only looks odd to you because you don't know the language. To me ( 20 year C programmer and 10 year perl programmer ) it's extremely straight forward.

Old timer (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048361)

You've been programming for at least 20 years. That means you've started when things weren't buried behind seven layers of abstraction but had to be done by hand. In languages that didn't help you all that much, but didn't get in the way of letting you get things done either. So, like me, you've seen things those young whippersnappers wouldn't believe.

Anyway, about perl, I've never seen why it got such a bad rap for excessive punctuation. The sigils on variables aren't that weird, even BASIC used them when I grew up. So you can use "weird things" like $_, well, you don't have to, if you don't feel like it.

I'm make my living by programming and I've used a lot of languages, tools and frameworks. I've been around the block a few times. And let me tell all young'uns that when I program for fun, at home, I do it in perl. Because perl fits my mental model and the syntax is a warm blanket in a cold, cold world.

Re:Old timer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048469)

You supper is ready, gramps.

Re:Old timer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049219)

That was mean but the condescending jerk deserved it. Every time I hear Perl, I think she wore a Perl necklace. Wow another programming language some blowhard made, yawn. Machine code is the real mans programming language and assembly from there you fools. Next we will have Lobster and its complimentary language called "butter". Go Slash dot liberals!

Re: Old timer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048503)

Also a fan of perl.

It's the only computer language ice ever used that "figures out my intention" based on context.

It's semi-intelligent.

Things that would cause runtime errors in other programs just work in perl. The perl runtime figures out what you were trying to do and does it.

Re:Old timer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048689)

Perl does get such a bad rap. I would much rather have puncuation in front of a variable if I'm reading someone else's code or a predeclaration of a variable if I'm trying to debug someone else's code so I know what the hell type of variable it's supposed to be. I know if I see a $ it's a scalar, @ its an array or % its a hash, but if i see a $ to it could also be a reference so sigh. But it sometimes beat looking at ruby code and seeing a variable delcared, espically an instance wide variable like @storage and trying to figure out where the hell it came from or what exactly it is.

Re:Old timer (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | about 10 months ago | (#44049089)

How is $storage in perl any less ambiguous? It might be a simple scalar, a scalar reference, an array reference, a hash reference, or an object of indeterminate type. At least in Ruby you know - for certain - that it is a class instance variable.

Re:Old timer (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#44050057)

"You've been programming for at least 20 years. That means you've started when things weren't buried behind seven layers of abstraction but had to be done by hand. In languages that didn't help you all that much, but didn't get in the way of letting you get things done either. So, like me, you've seen things those young whippersnappers wouldn't believe."

Those languages still exist, and real programmers learn them and even more powerful stuff that makes you a far better programmer... Like Assembler.

the "young whipper snappers" had better get off their asses and learn it so they can leverage knowledge that their peers do not have so they can be far more valuable in the workforce.

Honestly they really should force CS students to program on Arduinos and Pics before they ever touch larger hardware. Forced to deal with slow processor, tiny ram and near zero storage makes better programmers.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | about 10 months ago | (#44048275)

People who dont like Perl, dont know Perl.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048403)

Because if they really knew it, they'd hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns?

Oh wait, I'm thinking of Javascript. Carry on.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 10 months ago | (#44048833)

Or Python or Basic.

Perl has a bad rap mainly because systems adminstrators have abused it to hack out a quick solution. But, really, any language can have that happen. There's nothing inherently evil about Perl.

Python and Basic, OTOH, both have some pretty evil formatting requirements.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

kraut (2788) | about 10 months ago | (#44049411)

Python only forces you to indent in the way any sane person would indent anyway. That's not evil.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 10 months ago | (#44049819)

It hides formatting information in whitespace, something that no sane person would do.

It also ends lines at the new line rather than at a ;, which means that you're in a position where you can end up with long lines at times, where normally, you would just hit enter and continue on the next line.

In general though, any language that depends upon white space for anything other than separating elements is just asking for trouble.

Re:gag me with a shift button (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#44050097)

It also ends lines at the new line rather than at a ;, which means that you're in a position where you can end up with long lines at times, where normally, you would just hit enter and continue on the next line.

Python uses newline as a statement delimiter only if all bracketing constructions (...) [...] {...} are closed. The arguments of any function call, for instance, can be split over multiple lines, as can the elements of a list or dictionary or a long expression. And back when print was a statement (Python 2) as opposed to a function (Python 3), it was my common practice to do something like this:

print ("%s: not raising price because %s"
        % (sku, reason))

'\n'.join(L.strip() for L in text.split('\n')) (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#44050137)

Python only forces you to indent in the way any sane person would indent anyway. That's not evil.

It is when you have to send code through a channel that strips whitespace from the start of each line. With languages that use curly brackets or BEGIN/END, you can pass the code through something like GNU indent to restore the sane indentation. With Python, the block structure is just lost. And if you have your Slashdot posting preferences set to "HTML Formatted" rather than "Plain Old Text", Slashdot is one such channel, as <ecode> loses indentation in "HTML Formatted" mode.

s/(like)(.*)(know)/$3$2$1/; (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about 10 months ago | (#44048411)

... and therein lies our problem.

Re: s/(like)(.*)(know)/$3$2$1/; (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048531)

That's not perl, that's just regex.

Knowing regex is one of theist powerful tools in a developers toolkit.

The fact that perl makes it an intrinsic part of the language just helps.

I like perl for other reasons though.

I like the context aware nature of the language. Meanings of things change based on how they are used. That is brilliant!! More languages should copy that feature.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

swilde23 (874551) | about 10 months ago | (#44049667)

Please tell me that people aren't writing games in Perl... for the love of all that is sacred in this world.

Re:gag me with a shift button (2)

pmontra (738736) | about 10 months ago | (#44048213)

I agree that the meaning of this one liner is not easy to guess but there are other more fundamental things that bother me in Lobster. One is why they should make a difference between = to assign and := to define & assign. The first assignment should define. Most languages just do that and everybody is happy. The second rant is about the pythonish end of line colon. The : is ugly. It still hits me as a bad taste when writing Python: if a statement looks complete at the end of the line, then it's should be assumed to be complete. It doesn't sound difficult even with semantic spaces which IMHO are a Bad Choice but I won't spend words on that.

Rants ended, this language has some merits. The optional type declaration should make everybody happy. Immutable objects should be great for parallel and functional processing. Native vector operations are great. But there is one final rant: please don't mix objects and functions. It should be class.max and not max(objects). Two paradigms into one language are not a nice thing to look at (even if there are plenty of examples of this kind of languages).

Overall my first look opinion of Lobster is: a little too much on the ugly side of aesthetics but promising. It's always nice to see a new language even if the chances it will survive a couple of years are slim (that's true for every new language). Ideas spread so keep inventing.

Re: gag me with a shift button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048557)

The reason to have a distinction between assign and define & assign is that it prevents a whole class of errors due to typos.

Consider:

CatLives = 9
If inWater:
CatLines = 0
Else
CatLives = 8

Re: gag me with a shift button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049003)

CatLives = If inWater: 0 Else 8

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about 10 months ago | (#44048887)

I agree that the meaning of this one liner is not easy to guess but there are other more fundamental things that bother me in Lobster.

I think you're agreeing to something the GP didn't say. By virtue of the subject, he's referring to the number of times you have to use the SHIFT key to type up that line, slowing your programming down. Understanding the line is a different question.

Re:gag me with a shift button (1)

samkass (174571) | about 10 months ago | (#44049701)

It's always nice to see a new language even if the chances it will survive a couple of years are slim (that's true for every new language). Ideas spread so keep inventing.

IMHO, it's almost never nice to see a new language. They really couldn't have just extended Lua? What new value is offered by a new syntax for the same concepts everyone else has?

Too soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44047915)

I understand that this project has been alive for around 9 days. Isn't that a little too soon for this advertisement?

Re:Too soon (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 10 months ago | (#44048059)

Well you know, he has added support for OpenGL 1.0, and every so subtely changed the function names and arguments from the OpenGL standard:

gl_scale(0.5):

I bet he's the kind of C++ programmer who does this:

#define begin {
#endif end }
if( foo )
begin
// yeah, I loves pascal I do!
end

Dynamically Typed? (4, Insightful)

Wattos (2268108) | about 10 months ago | (#44047917)

Dynamically Typed with Optional Typing

Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer to stay with statically types languages. I know that the "kewl" kids love dynamically types languages, but it becomes a horror for maintenance. Ill be sticking with UDK in the meantime

Re:Dynamically Typed? (5, Insightful)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 10 months ago | (#44048125)

It really depends what you are doing. For many projects, scripting with some OOP is good enough (all those web projects, RoR, etc.). Having short code in an expressive language leads to less bugs.

Static typing is extremely useful because it catches all mistakes of a certain class. However, other mistakes you still have to unit test for. So if you are unit&integration testing well, the benefit of static typing is small, and you are capturing more mistakes than static typing would.

For projects where you have contract-like, long-term stable interfaces/APIs, yes, use static typing. But don't pretend it's for every project.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (2)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 10 months ago | (#44048167)

I agree.

A robust, statically typed language is for the framework and core functionality.
Dynamic typing is for scripting languages. As the name implies - for running short, often modifiable scripts in a well defined context.

I don't get why some people insist on going dynamic all the way.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048223)

I don't get why some people insist on going dynamic all the way.

Probably because they never had to. I like Python, quite a lot, but at some point you just throw it away because running (help) on every ill-documented object you encounter stops being funny.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 10 months ago | (#44048395)

It's the same reason why people use virtual everywhere, or make every class a template: It's the latest 'trick' they've discovered, and they think it's the silver bullet solution to everything. 12 months down the line, the painful maintainence nightmares they've created will encourage them to do things differently next time.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about 10 months ago | (#44048571)

"It really depends what you are doing. For many projects, scripting with some OOP is good enough (all those web projects, RoR, etc.). Having short code in an expressive language leads to less bugs."

Are you sure you're not conflating two different things here? It sounds like you're saying some languages are better for short, more expressive code, but that's not the same as static vs. dynamic typing.

The only increase in code from static typing is explicit conversion, but I do not see how this extra code can increase bugs, on the contrary, it's what often decreases bugs in applications written with static typing because the developer has to explicitly declare and perform the possible conversions. In contrast, with a dynamically typed language you're relying on the interpreter to guess, which is much more error prone.

If you perform a conversion in a statically typed language and it's wrong, you know the second you try and execute, but in a dynamically typed language you may not know there's a problem until you hit some edge case input, which is more likely to get out into production due to the subtle nature of it.

Do you have any examples of the classes of problem you believe dynamic typing avoids but static typing doesn't? You make the assertion that if you unit and integration test a dynamically typed language you capture more mistakes than you would with a statically typed language. I don't think that's ever the case, because static type makes capture of certain errors explicit in the implementation, the faults are unavoidable when you attempt execution, whilst dynamic typing relies on you stumbling across the error during execution, which means to capture it with unit tests means it's only as good as your unit tests which will rarely be as good as explicit and inherent capture of errors.

I agree that dynamic code has it's place - where you want to make quick changes, dynamic changes and want to see change instantly or where you don't care about code quality because you're just doing prototyping or proof of concept. But I think dynamic code is always inherently more error prone, I think it's a fallacy to pretend otherwise and I've never seen any evidence to suggest dynamically typed code is less error prone than statically typed code so I'd be intrigued to see it because I don't see how inherent ability to capture a certain class of errors coupled with tools for finding every other class of errors can ever be worse than no inherent ability to capture that class of errors with the same tools to find the other classes of errors. It just doesn't make sense.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 10 months ago | (#44048187)

Hm, count me among the skeptics, too. The problem is that "dynamic typing" creates principal performance bottlenecks - not good for games. The golden rule is to compute as much as possible at compile time using a strong type system, including type checking, type inference, bounds checking, overflow checks. Heck, with a strong enough type system you might even be able to avoid most of runtime exception handling (see e.g. the design goals of Parasail). What you want is to encourage the programmer to use very limited subtypes to e.g. be able to optimize loops and procedure calls based on known compile-time constraints.

Just about the only place where you really need dynamic types is dynamic dispatch in OOP, which might not be the best programming paradigm when performance matters anyway.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049231)

How many games have you written, exactly? I've worked on AAA games from 1995 to today, and most of the industry is using dynamically-typed languages for scripting, and has been since the days of QuakeC. The iteration time is so much faster because the compiler doesn't have to work all that shit out up front. Iteration time is king in game production. Runtime is important too but we all know (right?) that only 10% of your code is reponsible for 90% of your runtime. The other 90% of your code can bloat by 2-3x if you get that 10% right. Premature optimization is still the root of all evil, and avoiding languages with fast developer iteration times because they are slower at runtime is a classic example of this. Plus, remember, your processor time is not going to ALU ops. ALU ops are free except in very specific cases (that 10%). For the other 90% all your time is going to memory waits. You might be waiting for dozens of cycles so what difference is it if you run 1 ALU op or 12 ALU ops in parallel with that? Interpreted code is free if your memory access patterns are bad enough. And they are, believe me.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (2)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#44049305)

Get it done cheap and fast, and most of all cheap. Then fire everyone.

The AAA game market is not a good example of tight programming.

Re:Dynamically Typed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049211)

I know that the "kewl" kids love dynamically types languages

Just to play devil's advocate, the notation we all learn for math isn't typed in any sane way. Typically you'll write a function and then tack on some prose that says, "for all positive integers". If anything, optional typing gets us back to math which is older and decidedly not "kewl".

That said, I much prefer C to "scripting" languages. I have a hard time imagining a dynamic language for anything other than scripting or inelegant web projects where managers are telling you to "just throw more hardware at it". Typing is optimization. The devil's advocate could argue further that premature typing is premature optimization. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to have a warning level for the compiler that flagged anything that wasn't properly typed. For production, you'd make sure you nailed down all the types. Of course a lot of programmers are no more disciplined about compiler warnings than they are about bounds-checking...

Alternatively you could just (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#44047949)

Alternatively you could just use the Python OpenGL bindings [sourceforge.net] (r pick your favourite language). From the project home page I can't see any reason why this language is better than many existing, stable, and optimised languages for accessing OpenGL.

Re:Alternatively you could just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048311)

Thanks for the warning. Being in the same category as Python, Whitespace and Brainfuck makes this language one to avoid.

Re:Alternatively you could just (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#44048567)

Thanks for the warning. Being in the same category as Python, Whitespace and Brainfuck makes this language one to avoid.

Funny I must be the only person with moderate feelings about Python. I think its OK, but prefer static typing for anything past prototyping and indent is a bit of a nuisence

"Fun features"? (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about 10 months ago | (#44047953)

Languages don't have "fun" features, they either have useful features or bloat.

Looks like yet another me-too language that's someones pet project that will be forgotten about this time tommorow.

Re:"Fun features"? (1)

doti (966971) | about 10 months ago | (#44049039)

I do think Perl has features that are fun to use. In other words, a feature can be useful _and_ fun.

Just what is needed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44047963)

Another programming language! Why do people keep reinventing the spoon? Is it all CS-majors that feel they need to make a mark on the world?

Re:Just what is needed! (5, Funny)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 10 months ago | (#44048157)

Another programming language! Why do people keep reinventing the spoon?

Which spoon? The soup spoon? Teaspoon? Tablespoon? Dessert spoon? Wooden spoon?

Re:Just what is needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048211)

The reason is that there is no spoon.

Re:Just what is needed! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048317)

At least it's open source, you can always fork it.

Re:Just what is needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049253)

At least it's open source, you can always spork it.

FTFY

Re:Just what is needed! (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#44048463)

Why do people keep reinventing the spoon? Is it all CS-majors that feel they need to make a mark on the world?

So that they can delude themselves that their also-ran game programming language is going to catch on and become all the rage, as if all the big game developers are going to throw away their uber-expensive proprietary development environments and rewrite their engines in some shitty new open-source language that has shit for documentation, a billion bugs, no IDE support, and a micro-fraction of the libraries available for even the lamest existing language.

Re:Just what is needed! (1)

Xest (935314) | about 10 months ago | (#44048621)

To be fair developing a programming language is actually an excellent project for anyone wanting to further their comp. sci./development skills.

There's just absolutely no need to plaster it over the front page of a news site on the internet. Keep it to yourself, no one cares.

Not needed, thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44047979)

No thanks, already have a perfect programming language. Why reinvent the wheel when the old wheel still works ok?
Mostly we don't need new languages we simply need better libraries.

Re:Not needed, thanks (2, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#44048027)

We've had a perfect programming language since C.

That's why everything since has copied the syntax and half the operators.

Re:Not needed, thanks (2)

spongman (182339) | about 10 months ago | (#44048185)

We've had a perfect programming language since C.

And a whole bunch of segfaults, too.

Speak for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048393)

That you don't understand pointers and don't check your boundaries doesn't mean competent programmers have those issues, now does it?

Re:Speak for yourself (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 10 months ago | (#44048543)

> That you don't understand pointers and don't check your boundaries doesn't mean *perfect* programmers have those issues, now does it?

FTFW.

Re:Speak for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048553)

Maybe nobody does, as problems with pointers tend to pop up once in a while anyway.

Re:Not needed, thanks (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about 10 months ago | (#44048857)

We've had a perfect programming language since Fortran.

That's why everything since has copied the syntax and half the operators.

Fixed that for you. Where did you think most of C syntax came from?

Re:Not needed, thanks (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#44048987)

I just looked up some Fortran code. It doesn't look very C-like. No semicolons, no curly braces, some functions take bracketed paramaters while others do not, and the example code on Wikipedia contains a lot of things that just make no sense to me. Like 'IF (IA) 777, 777, 701' - What does that do? There is no variable I can find called IA. It may be a good language once you've learned it, but it doesn't look remotely like C. If anything, I'd say it shows some simularity to BASIC.

Re:Not needed, thanks (1)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#44049033)

Where did you think most of C syntax came from?

BCPL [wikipedia.org] and maybe a bit of Algol? (Those $( and )$ represent curly braces for uppercase-only terminals.)

(Wow, I had forgotten that Amiga OS was originally written in BCPL.)

Re:Not needed, thanks (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#44049333)

C syntax sure as hell didn't come from FORTRAN. What the hell mixture of recreational chemicals are you on?

Re:Not needed, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048343)

Yeah, I'm sticking with Java, too.

Re:Not needed, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049971)

You have a mini strawman there as the parent did not mention Java at all.

Submitter is Committer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44047987)

Jeez, Soulskill, pick up on the obvious self promotion once in your life.

heh captcha: sodomy

Re:Submitter is Committer (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 10 months ago | (#44048333)

Jeez, Soulskill, pick up on the obvious self promotion once in your life.

The plug would have been received better if the submitter just had said upfront in the summary that "this is something I made, check it out".

Engaged (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048037)

They author should be commended for creating and releasing publicly rather than the whining and complaining found here. As a personal project, it may be improved, abandoned, rewritten, or simply enhances skills that will lead to other contributions.

Re:Engaged (1)

abies (607076) | about 10 months ago | (#44048101)

All of us have half-finished, useless projects out there, which have potential to be something nice if we spend another 30 man-years of effort and rewrite them few times. Nothing wrong with that. But posting ninja self-promoting submissions to slashdot about them... thats pathetic.

Re:Engaged (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 10 months ago | (#44048399)

All of us have half-finished, useless projects out there, which have potential to be something nice if we spend another 30 man-years of effort and rewrite them few times. Nothing wrong with that.

That is not always good. Finishing your projects properly is a very important skill for an engineer, artist, or anyone really. Half-finished stuff gives a bad impression of your work and makes yourself feel uncomfortable about not completing them.

Just spec your projects before starting and assess whether you can realistically complete them, and you're good.

Re:Engaged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048827)

All of us have half-finished, useless projects out there, which have potential to be something nice if we spend another 30 man-years of effort and rewrite them few times. Nothing wrong with that.

That is not always good. Finishing your projects properly is a very important skill for an engineer, artist, or anyone really. Half-finished stuff gives a bad impression of your work and makes yourself feel uncomfortable about not completing them.

Any human with a functioning brain has more ideas than they have time to make into finished products. These ideas don't give a bad impression, because we don't push them on others unless/until they are finished (unlike the submitter).

Just spec your projects before starting and assess whether you can realistically complete them, and you're good.

Are you a troll, or have you never done anything creative or research based?

Should have named it rock lobster. (1)

boylinux (775361) | about 10 months ago | (#44048043)

Then we could have had fun with the "It wasn't a rock it was a ...Rock Lobster! comments.

Re:Should have named it rock lobster. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048443)

They're saving that name for the hardened version.

nothing new (2)

SuperDre (982372) | about 10 months ago | (#44048053)

great, another one of those wannabe languages.. There are already a lot of other alternatives out there..
Just use one of the classic languages with the same libraries as this one uses, you'll be glad you did..

Re:nothing new (1)

pmontra (738736) | about 10 months ago | (#44048235)

Why not? Experimentation is useful and gives many languages that die quickly but also ideas that spread and end up in languages that stick. Just imagine saying use the classic languages at the time of Cobol and Fortran, or at the time of C later on. No C, no Perl, no Python, no Ruby, no Java, no PHP (oh well...), no JavaScript. All of them got ideas from other languages and spread their ideas into newer languages or into contemporary ones (PHP has traits nowadays).

As for really using Lobster in production, let's wait and see how it compares to its competitors. Chances that it will go anywhere are little as for every other new language.

Re:nothing new (1)

abies (607076) | about 10 months ago | (#44048651)

It makes sense if language explores new ideas or has groundbreaking implementation. There is no reason to experiment with languages which have both design and implementation sub-par to multiple of existing ones.
That said, everybody should try writing their own language at least once in lifetime - it is very good experience and you learn a lot about why other languages have certain quirks. It is just that you should not try to sell your 'baby' on slashdot...

Re:nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44048921)

no Python, no Ruby, no Java, no PHP (oh well...), no JavaScript.

Sounds wonderful. Maybe we could go back to having efficient software rather than bloatware crap churned out by hipsters who rewrite everything in the newest fad langauge.

Re:nothing new (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#44049367)

Maybe we could go back to having efficient software rather than bloatware crap churned out by hipsters who rewrite everything in the newest fad langauge.

Wins the mother #%*(&@#% thread. Goodnight and drive safely.

cheap jordan shoes handbag store (-1, Offtopic)

lakkago (2956711) | about 10 months ago | (#44048171)

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT! The website cheap wholesale and retail for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan, also including the handbags,sunglasses,jeans,shirts,hat,belt and the watch, All the products are free shipping, and the price is competitive, after the payment, can ship within short time. the goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,DHL,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days! http://www.sport3trade.net/ [sport3trade.net] cheap jordan for $40, Air Max 90 for $41, air shox for $40, best handbags for $39, Sunglasses for $18, wallet for $19, belt for $18, T-shirts for $20, Jeans for $39, NFL/MLB/NBA jersey for $25, Top Rolex watch,jordan for cheap, http://www.sport3trade.net/ [sport3trade.net]

Why? (2)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 10 months ago | (#44048371)

Why do you need a new language?

Re:Why? (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about 10 months ago | (#44048903)

The same reason my kid does. To start a club you're not a member of.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049085)

Because programming languages are like digital currencies; any idiot can make one, but it takes a whole bunch of idiots believing in it for it to have any meaning, whereupon the originator and their circle of friends can cash in big because the system favours the "early adopters" by design.
Come to think of it, religions work the same way...

patatje (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44049365)

from the name alone i just knew this had to be an Aardappel creation!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...