Pure Lazyness

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Pure Lazyness
by Pure Lazyness on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @07:46

Python and Ruby may be nice but not enough if you're looking for pure lazyness. To achieve that we'd need Haskell bindings :D

Related Links

·   Articles on Developer
·   Also by Pure Lazyness
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Pure Lazyness
by gerd on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @07:58

what about basic or Delphi?

Most people here celebrate Python and Ruby because they achieve the same what visual Basic and Delphi provided for years.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Philippe Fremy on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @08:12

You are joking right ? I don't know for Delphi, but Visual Basic has some inner limitations (limited class model and other stuff) that python and ruby do not have.

For example, I sometimes like to do a dynamic class inheritance. I have also seen python used as a functional language, which I doubt Visual Basic could ever do.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Richard Dale on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @08:23

"they achieve the same what visual Basic and Delphi provided for years"

No, not at all - both python and ruby are a long, long way ahead of what Basic and Delphi provide. Basic started off as a simpified FORTRAN, pascal (ie the Delphi language) started off as a simplified Algol. Ruby and python don't share those ancestors, instead they are more branches off various AI research languages. I started programming in 1976 learning the language POP-11 on an AI course, and of all the languages I've used in the next quarter century ruby is the most similar. Even in the mid-1970s I regarded Basic (and FORTRAN) as an outdated pile of crap and I've always been puzzled as to why Basic subsequently became so popular in the 80's.

Matz the ruby designer isn't familiar with POP-11 as far as I know, and so it is only a coincidence that ruby is similar.

Python and ruby are languages for the 21st century, whereas Basic and pascal are both well past their sell by dates - I personally feel it is time to move on. Blocks, closures, continuations, list processing, pattern matching - that's ruby's realm and it used to be the exclusive preserve of AI languages like lisp (or POP-11 based on the lamda calculus like lisp, but with an Algol look).

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Evan "JabberWokky" E. on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @10:57

I've always felt that Delphi was much more closely related to Modula3 (which is related to Pascal, which is related to pseudocode for programming which is arguably related to Algol).

Ruby and Python are certainly "post compiler" languages. They do things in a way that ignores any considerations to the structure of the language compiler or interpreter. Other languages are tied to certain concepts regarding the underlying architecture and mechanics of the processor and machine. There are still some legacy concepts pulled over (hopefully the good ones), but they are very distinct from languages like C or C++... or even proper BASIC.

Incidently, this somewhat supports the idea that C (and derived) languages have their place as the underlying layer - if only to keep out system level extensions that would otherwise constrain a high level language. Use C (and kin) to build up from the processor to get to a level where easy tools can be used. In that sense, KDE and (BSD|Linux|Unix) are basically device drivers for the abstracted language.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Richard Dale on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @16:28

"I've always felt that Delphi was much more closely related to Modula3 (which is related to Pascal, which is related to pseudocode for programming which is arguably related to Algol)."

If you read up on James Gosling's background you'll find he didn't have any object oriented programming experience before designing java and imposing it on the rest of us. He implemented a uscd-p system pascal compiler system on dec vax to solve some problem he had in the early 80's I believe, and just used that idea in conjunction with knowing the C++ had big problems, to invent java.

I feel Anders Hejlsberg (Delphi/C# designer) has more intellectual horsepower than Gosling, and certainly would have known about Modular-3 when implementing Delphi. Even so, when I attended a Delphi introduction presentation in 1996 or so, I can only remember feeling utterly underwhelmed. I was a fulltime NeXTStep programmer used to the dynamic runtime of Objective-C, and just couldn't understand why a warmed over Object Pascal would appeal to anyone..

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by D on Tuesday 21/Sep/2004, @18:12

As opposed to a warmed over Object C? Smalltalkers on the other hand wonder what glue you've both been sniffing.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Richard Dale on Tuesday 21/Sep/2004, @18:53

Yes, java doesn't seem to have been influenced by Smalltalk because maybe James Gosling didn't know anything much about it. Which is a shame - he wouldn't have come up with static methods instead of proper class methods with dynamic despatch. And classes would have been objects that you send a 'new' message to create an instance. That design error has been carried through to C# - I really don't like static methods.

"Resist the urge to overuse static methods.":

http://www.ftponline.com/javapro/2004_09/magazine/columns/proshop/

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Evan "JabberWokky" E. on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @12:44

I have a feeling much of the reason is due to Borland's wide set of users that used TurboPascal and ilk to write real apps. Much like a C programmer moves to C derived languages easily, Delphi was easy for somebody used to Borland's Pascal offerings.

Incidently, Objective-C was specifically the reason I kept referring to "C derived languages". I'd love to use it, but haven't had a project that was appropriate. Other than a few single file programs one step beyond "Hello World", I haven't played with it. Most of my time these days is spent with PHP and enforcing proper coding practices on developers with bad habits.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Pure Lazyness on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @08:42

Well Delphi would not achieve that, Haskell on the other hand is *Purely* functional and uses *Lazy* evaluation :) I was going for a easy harmless joke. Guess it didn't work.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by ac on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @11:58

I got it. :)

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Philippe Fremy on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @08:03

So, when do you start one ? An OCaml binding would be welcome too. Given that there is a binding generator for already a few languages (Java, C#, ruby and perl if I am correct), it should not be that hard to add a few more.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Pure Lazyness
by Richard Dale on Tuesday 21/Sep/2004, @18:57

Ashley Winters, the guy who designed the Smoke library did start on an OCaml binding. I don't know how far he got with it.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"When I'm not hacking on a computer, I like to play the guitar and get drunk. Sometimes both at once." -- Richard J. Moore
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.