Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

Discussion in 'C++' started by Dave Allison, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Dave Allison

    Dave Allison Guest

    Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :)

    For about 5 years now, I have been developing a scripting/prototyping language
    that is now available on the net. It's called Aikido and was born in Sun Labs, but
    has been released as open source. I no longer work for Sun, but am continuing
    to use and develop it.

    The language has a syntax similar to C++ and Java but is aimed at adhoc and
    prototyping tasks. Unlike other scripting language, the idea of Aikido is to make
    it easy for the programmer who is familiar with the C/C++/Java syntax
    to pick it up and get started immediately.

    The language is interpreted and has some interesting features:

    * Dynamically typed, with large number of builtin types (string, vector, map, etc)
    * Lexically scoped, a la Pascal, Ada, etc.
    * Object oriented, single inheritance with packages, classes and interfaces
    * Multithreaded, with Java and Ada style monitors
    * Builtin stream operations
    * Operator overloading
    * enumerated types
    * powerful string manipulation with regular expressions
    * ability to call out to C functions with no additional interface code
    * partial Java object model

    It runs on Solaris, Linux and Mac OS X and is available from www.sun.com/coolstuff.
    I will put it on Source Forge or Bitkeeper when I have a chance.

    If you find yourself in need of a programming language that is easy to use
    and readable, please have a look at it.

    Cheers,

    Dave
     
    Dave Allison, Feb 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In comp.lang.c Dave Allison <> wrote:

    > Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :)


    Nothing inherently wrong with it, except that few on the groups you've
    posted this to will care. Try being topical next time.

    > If you find yourself in need of a programming language that is easy to use
    > and readable, please have a look at it.


    When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.

    --
    Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
    ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
     
    Christopher Benson-Manica, Feb 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Allison

    Larry Hazel Guest

    Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

    >
    >
    > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    > directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
    >


    C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.
     
    Larry Hazel, Feb 5, 2004
    #3
  4. "Larry Hazel" <> wrote...
    > Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    > > directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
    > >

    >
    > C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.


    C to a C[++] programmer is no more difficult than Chinese to
    an educated Chinese person. I, on the other hand have no
    idea how to read Chinese. But I don't exclaim "you've got
    to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
    to read.
     
    Victor Bazarov, Feb 5, 2004
    #4
  5. Larry Hazel wrote:

    > Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    >> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
    >>

    >
    > C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.


    Compared to the other languages in this crosspost? Damn right it's easy to
    read! :)

    I mean yes, okay, I know what you mean. Any sufficiently advanced IOCCC
    entry is indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
    IOCCC entries!


    --
    Richard Heathfield :
    "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
    C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
     
    Richard Heathfield, Feb 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Dave Allison

    Unforgiven Guest

    Dave Allison wrote:
    > It's called Aikido


    As an aikidoka, I object to that.

    I wonder if the Aikikai Hombu Dojo (or someone else) owns the rights to the
    name aikido? Probably not, though, considering all the different styles out
    there.

    --
    Unforgiven
     
    Unforgiven, Feb 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Dave Allison

    Les Cargill Guest

    Larry Hazel wrote:
    >
    > Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    > > directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.
    > >

    >
    > C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.


    'C' is a right-regular language, with good orthogonality of
    operators. That literally means "easy to read" - or at least
    having the capacity to be writrten in a fashion that is easy
    to read.

    If you've ever seen any deep Perl code, you'd understand :)

    --
    Les Cargill
     
    Les Cargill, Feb 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Dave Allison

    Jack Klein Guest

    Jack Klein, Feb 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Jack Klein wrote:
    > On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, (Dave Allison)
    > wrote in comp.lang.c:
    >
    >
    >>Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :)

    >
    >
    > Oh no, not another "cross posted to four groups and off-topic in all
    > of them" posting :-(
    >


    Yeah, yeah. That's what I get for not posting anything for ten
    years I suppose. How one forgets...

    I would disagree that it's off-topic though, since it's a language
    that is derived from the others. Where should I have posted
    it?

    Apologies for the faux-pas folks.
     
    David Allison, Feb 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Dave Allison

    Jack Klein Guest

    On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:29:59 -0800, David Allison
    <> wrote in comp.lang.c++:

    > Jack Klein wrote:
    > > On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, (Dave Allison)
    > > wrote in comp.lang.c:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :)

    > >
    > >
    > > Oh no, not another "cross posted to four groups and off-topic in all
    > > of them" posting :-(
    > >

    >
    > Yeah, yeah. That's what I get for not posting anything for ten
    > years I suppose. How one forgets...
    >
    > I would disagree that it's off-topic though, since it's a language
    > that is derived from the others. Where should I have posted
    > it?
    >
    > Apologies for the faux-pas folks.


    news:comp.programming would be one place to start.

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
    http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
     
    Jack Klein, Feb 6, 2004
    #10
  11. "David Allison" <> wrote...
    > Jack Klein wrote:
    > > On 5 Feb 2004 14:13:43 -0800, (Dave Allison)
    > > wrote in comp.lang.c:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :)

    > >
    > >
    > > Oh no, not another "cross posted to four groups and off-topic in all
    > > of them" posting :-(
    > >

    >
    > Yeah, yeah. That's what I get for not posting anything for ten
    > years I suppose. How one forgets...
    >
    > I would disagree that it's off-topic though, since it's a language
    > that is derived from the others. Where should I have posted
    > it?


    You could have posted a request to create a special newsgroup "just
    for your new cool interpreted language". All others seem to have at
    least one, right? I believe your language deserves it. Besides,
    having a newsgroup adds weight to the results of your labour.

    Or you could have posted to comp.programming or [heavens forbid] to
    one of them newsgroups with "announce" in the name. Nah!

    You see, posting your message about a new language in an existing
    language newsgroup sounds more like "Look here, folks, stop wasting
    your time on this old <insert_existing_language_name_here>, and turn
    to my new and improved one! It's so much better 'cause I tool the
    best from all of your old and now obsolete languages..." Of course,
    I exaggerate. To deliver the point.

    Ah, beating a dead horse here, time for me to go do something useful
    for a change. Sorry for the noise...
     
    Victor Bazarov, Feb 6, 2004
    #11
  12. ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.ada.]
    On 2004-02-06, Les Cargill <> wrote:
    >
    > 'C' is a right-regular language, with good orthogonality of
    > operators. That literally means "easy to read" - or at least
    > having the capacity to be writrten in a fashion that is easy
    > to read.


    This is simply not true. How come there are so many buffer overflow
    security problems then? However, let us not start a language war again
    (as usually happens each time somebody crosspost between several
    language newsgroups).

    > If you've ever seen any deep Perl code, you'd understand :)


    And if you had seen Ada95 code you would understand that C[++] isn't
    readable. Especially with huge projects.

    --
    "Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
    language."
     
    Preben Randhol, Feb 6, 2004
    #12
  13. Richard Heathfield <> scribbled the following
    on comp.lang.c:
    > Larry Hazel wrote:
    >> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >>>
    >>> When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    >>> directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.

    >>
    >> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.


    > Compared to the other languages in this crosspost? Damn right it's easy to
    > read! :)


    > I mean yes, okay, I know what you mean. Any sufficiently advanced IOCCC
    > entry is indistinguishable from line noise. But not /all/ C programs are
    > IOCCC entries!


    I find C harder to read than Java, and easier to read than C++. I
    don't know about Ada, as I've never seen it. But C and C++ are a
    breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp. They look like
    C looked while I was still a BASIC programmer: a random jumble of
    punctuation marks.

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
    \-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
    "Nothing lasts forever - so why not destroy it now?"
    - Quake
     
    Joona I Palaste, Feb 6, 2004
    #13
  14. "Joona I Palaste" <> wrote in message
    news:bvvjqj$4fb$...
    > ... But C and C++ are a
    > breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.


    I find Perl particularly obtuse. Perl reminds me of those comics where
    obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.
    Frankly, I don't understand how Perl has caught on when there are more
    powerful, and more readable, string processing languages available.
     
    Frank J. Lhota, Feb 6, 2004
    #14
  15. On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:49:40 +0000, Frank J. Lhota wrote:

    > "Joona I Palaste" <> wrote in message
    > news:bvvjqj$4fb$...
    >> ... But C and C++ are a
    >> breeze compared to the likes of Perl, Python and Lisp.

    >
    > I find Perl particularly obtuse. Perl reminds me of those comics where
    > obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.
    > Frankly, I don't understand how Perl has caught on when there are more
    > powerful, and more readable, string processing languages available.


    I find C particularly obtuse. C reminds me of those comics where
    obscene language is replaced by a string of random puctuation characters.
    Frankly, I don't understand how C has caught on when there are more
    powerful, and more readable, processing languages available.

    Not trying to be funny, but your description made me immediately think of
    my first introduction to C, and now I'm (trying to be) a Perl hacker. I
    guess what is readable is very much in the eye of the beholder.

    M4
     
    Martijn Lievaart, Feb 6, 2004
    #15
  16. In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    : "Larry Hazel" <> wrote...
    :> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    :>
    :> >
    :> >
    :> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    :> > directly to C.
    :> >
    :>
    :> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.
    :
    : I, on the other hand have no
    : idea how to read Chinese. But I don't exclaim "you've got
    : to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
    : to read.

    Possible... "readable", then "easy to read", then "possible
    to read". Some of Chinese ideographic content is easy to remember if
    you learn to distinguish the pictures. Doesn't mean that Chinese
    writing is easy to understand, e.g. because of context dependence.
    Now what does "read" mean?


    Georg
     
    Georg Bauhaus, Feb 6, 2004
    #16
  17. "Georg Bauhaus" <-duisburg.de> wrote...
    > In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    > : "Larry Hazel" <> wrote...
    > :> Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    > :>
    > :> >
    > :> >
    > :> > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    > :> > directly to C.
    > :> >
    > :>
    > :> C? Easy to read? You have got to be kidding.
    > :
    > : I, on the other hand have no
    > : idea how to read Chinese. But I don't exclaim "you've got
    > : to be kidding" when somebody says that Chinese is possible
    > : to read.
    >
    > Possible... "readable", then "easy to read", then "possible
    > to read". Some of Chinese ideographic content is easy to remember if
    > you learn to distinguish the pictures. Doesn't mean that Chinese
    > writing is easy to understand, e.g. because of context dependence.
    > Now what does "read" mean?


    What are you arguing about? For somebody who never saw Latin alphabet,
    and only read Chinese all his life, what's easier to read? It has been
    already mentioned, readability, or, if you so desire, easiness to read,
    is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing else to talk about.
     
    Victor Bazarov, Feb 6, 2004
    #17
  18. In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    :> Now what does "read" mean?
    :
    : What are you arguing about? For somebody who never saw Latin alphabet,
    : and only read Chinese all his life, what's easier to read?

    This is one of the questions implied by "Now what does 'read' mean?".
    What's your answer?

    (For example, I'm told that Chinese readers have an unusually
    high reading speed, measured in time needed to absorb an article
    containing a certain amount of "stuff" or "content".
    I have not had difficulties reading Cobol fragments although
    I know very little about Cobol.
    I have had difficulties understanding the same ideas expressed
    in other languages that I knew equally well.
    How well can you express VHLevel programming constructs in
    language X as compared to in language Y?)

    : It has been
    : already mentioned, readability, or, if you so desire, easiness to read,
    : is in the eye of the beholder.

    Mentioned... Well, claimed. How about referring to some results
    in readability research (it exists)? How much does readability affect
    the outcome of programming endeavour? Over time?

    : There is nothing else to talk about.

    Uhm, yes. Could you?
     
    Georg Bauhaus, Feb 6, 2004
    #18
  19. "Georg Bauhaus" <-duisburg.de> wrote...
    > In comp.lang.ada Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    > [...]


    I have no particular interest to continue this OT discussion here,
    sorry.
     
    Victor Bazarov, Feb 6, 2004
    #19
  20. Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

    > In comp.lang.c Dave Allison <> wrote:
    >
    >> Oh no, not another "check out my cool new language" posting :)

    >
    > Nothing inherently wrong with it, except that few on the groups you've
    > posted this to will care. Try being topical next time.
    >
    >> If you find yourself in need of a programming language that is easy to
    >> use and readable, please have a look at it.

    >
    > When I need a language that's easy to use and readable, I turn
    > directly to C. Don't let me stop you, though.


    C is the most difficult Language to read and use. And yes, I have 10 years+
    experience in C and C++ so I know what I am talking about. After a few
    years of C and C++ it became clear to me that all those great K&R invetions
    (array = pointer, type convertions left right and center - to name only
    two) are crap.

    In C and C++ I spend 10 times as much time inside a debugger as for example
    in Ada. And I have only 1 year experience in Ada which shows something
    about the quality of C or C++.

    As for the OP: Scripting in a C style language: No thank you.

    With Regards

    Martin.

    --
    mailto://
    http://www.ada.krischik.com
     
    Martin Krischik, Feb 6, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ludovic Brenta
    Replies:
    86
    Views:
    1,372
    Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?=
    Feb 19, 2004
  2. Dave Allison

    Announcing new scripting/prototyping language

    Dave Allison, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    877
    Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
    Mar 4, 2004
  3. Ludovic Brenta
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    1,460
    Hyman Rosen
    Feb 26, 2004
  4. Mark Hahn
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    672
    Carlos Ribeiro
    Sep 9, 2004
  5. DaveInSidney
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    423
    DaveInSidney
    May 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page