new forum -- homework help/chit chat/easy communication

C

csheppard91

I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
communication is much easier, safer, and faster.
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=

I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
communication is much easier, safer, and faster.

Easier than what? Having to look into each forum to see if something is
new? That's easier?
Safer than what? Using a web browser? That's safe?
Faster? That page loads 10 posts in the same speed I get 700 posts with
usenet.

Don't think so matey.

Nice try though.
 
F

Fredrik Lundh

Lasse said:
Don't think so matey.

oh, come on. a site run by some random guy in North Carolina has to be
safer, faster and more reliable than a distributed communication system that
has been around since that guy was born...

</F>
 
M

Michael Goettsche

Easier than what? Having to look into each forum to see if something is
new? That's easier?
Safer than what? Using a web browser? That's safe?
Faster? That page loads 10 posts in the same speed I get 700 posts with
usenet.

Besides that, it's cheap advertising. Would it have been harder to post the
direct forum link than to link to his company's website?
 
F

Fredrik Lundh

Michael said:
Besides that, it's cheap advertising. Would it have been harder to post the
direct forum link than to link to his company's website?

company?

</F>
 
G

Grant Edwards

I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
communication is much easier, safer, and faster.

I disagree 100% with that last assertion. Usenet is much,
much, easier, safer and faster.
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=

Fredrik said:
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:




oh, come on. a site run by some random guy in North Carolina has to be
safer, faster and more reliable than a distributed communication system that
has been around since that guy was born...

Yes, of course, my mistake, it's rather obvious now that you point it out.
 
B

Brandon K

Hrm...i find it demeaning to relegate Python to a scripting language
while Visual Basic is in the "software development" section. Python so
outdoes VB in every way shape and form.

I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
communication is much easier, safer, and faster.


----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms!
----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----
 
B

Brandon K

I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
communication is much easier, safer, and faster.

[.section Blurb]

About me:
My name is James (Cantley) Sheppard. I am a North Carolina resident, at
the age of 16. I have been programming since the age of 12, and enjoy it
as lifes[sic] greatest passion. In the future, I would love to become
the leading Software Engineer at a fairly large company, and maybe
someday own my own business. As of right now, I am currently in high
school and planning on going to a four year college somewhere around the
country. Well, that is my life story, and about all I got to say!


[.section Commentary]

Hrm, obviously hasn't had enough programming experience in 4 years to
quite know what he's talking about. Before making random "assertions"
James, you might want to take into account the community you're talking
to. I don't know about you guys, but I've had enough teen start up
webpages. They clog the web. No offense of course to the younger
readers, its just...it's like E/N sites...junk most of the time.


----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms!
----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=

Brandon said:
Hrm...i find it demeaning to relegate Python to a scripting language
while Visual Basic is in the "software development" section. Python so
outdoes VB in every way shape and form.
<snip>

In that respect I would very much like to see a definition of "scripting
language" as well :)

In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
and a "programming language".
 
B

Brandon K

In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
and a "programming language".

Good point.


----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms!
----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----
 
D

Donn Cave

Quoth Lasse_Vgsther_Karlsen <[email protected]>:
| Brandon K wrote:
|> Hrm...i find it demeaning to relegate Python to a scripting language
|> while Visual Basic is in the "software development" section. Python so
|> outdoes VB in every way shape and form.

| <snip>
|
| In that respect I would very much like to see a definition of "scripting
| language" as well :)
|
| In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
| and a "programming language".

I oculd come up with a definition, but I can't come up with _the_
definition. The word is used in such broad and vague ways that to
use it is practically a sign of sloppy thinking.

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)
 
F

Fredrik Lundh

Lasse said:
In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
and a "programming language".

here's one useful way to look at things:

"Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually
do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing
ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no
new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a
"scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it
then simply turns into a normal programming language."

-- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software":

</F>
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
"Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually
do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing
ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no
new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a
"scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it
then simply turns into a normal programming language."

-- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software":
<snip>

That description seems to describe whatever is written more than
whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the
difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting
language and a programming language.

I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
minor functions and things to that program.

Nowadays a lot of the scripting languages have turned programming
languages so I think the difference is small.
 
F

Fredrik Lundh

Lasse said:
<snip>

That description seems to describe whatever is written more than
whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the
difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting
language and a programming language.

well, yes and no. it basically implies that if a language doesn't have
the internal mechanisms required to implement persistent storage on
its own, it's a scripting language. examples are shell languages, the
Windows BAT language, javascript running in certain environments,
and the myriad of application-specific "command languages" that were
popular in the "old days".
Nowadays a lot of the scripting languages have turned programming
languages so I think the difference is small.

I think the trend is that when people are faced with a "scripting problem"
(e.g. when they need "command languages" or other kinds of basic pro-
grammability), it's no longer fashionable to invent yet another language.
integrating an existing runtime is a lot easier.

Tcl is an early example of a something that started as a "reusable
command language" and turned into a "real programming language"
along the way:

http://www.tcl.tk/advocacy/tclHistory.html

</F>
 
M

Mike Meyer

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen said:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:

<snip>

That description seems to describe whatever is written more than
whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the
difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting
language and a programming language.

It also pretty solidly capture what a shell script does.
I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
minor functions and things to that program.

That's certainly one kind of scripting language. But I don't think
it's ever been the only kind - shells have always been stand-alone
applications. What they have in common with your definition is that
both types of languages are used to capture user actions for later
repetition. And that's what makes a scripting language: it's a
language in which one writes "scripts" that describe actions -
normally taken by a user - so that a series of them can be performed
automatically.

For my take on the ontology of scripting languages, see <URL:
http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/scripting/what.html >.

<mike
 
P

Paul Rubin

Fredrik Lundh said:
Tcl is an early example of a something that started as a "reusable
command language" and turned into a "real programming language"
along the way:

Yes, that's why tcl is such an awful language. And it happens all the
time. It's better to just start with a powerful language, e.g.,
Python, Guile, etc. From the Guile blurb:
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html#whatisit


The true cost of doing it yourself
==================================

When you get to the point in your project where you need a scripting
language or a configuration file format and reader, the normal course
of things is to say ``I'll just do something clean and simple.'' This
is a good decision. Adding a full programming language is just a
distraction from your project. But simple languages don't seem capable
of staying simple. For example, early releases of PHP, a language for
generating web pages dynamically, enjoyed its minute memory footprint
and simplicity. However over time PHP has grown, with the latest
releases giving PHP an object system and other features that have
grown it to a much larger size. Compare Tcl from its 1988 origins with
the modern, sizable language. Broadly, the same progression has
occurred with Perl.
....
Guile has the fundamentals you need; you simply specialize it for your
application. It has arrays and lists; modules; objects; and
first-class functions. It has garbage collection --- which makes using
Guile especially simple. Using Guile, your application has a
full-featured scripting language right from the beginning, so you can
focus your manpower on the novel and attention-getting parts of your
application.
 
D

Donn Cave

Quoth Mike Meyer <[email protected]>:
....
|> I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
|> within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
|> without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
|> minor functions and things to that program.
|
| That's certainly one kind of scripting language. But I don't think
| it's ever been the only kind - shells have always been stand-alone
| applications. What they have in common with your definition is that
| both types of languages are used to capture user actions for later
| repetition. And that's what makes a scripting language: it's a
| language in which one writes "scripts" that describe actions -
| normally taken by a user - so that a series of them can be performed
| automatically.

I don't think the shell is any exception - I think it's reasonable to
see it as a control+UI language embedded in the UNIX operating system.
It wouldn't really be a very useful stand-alone application on a computer
platform without the same basic properties.

Donn Cave, (e-mail address removed)
 
D

Dennis Lee Bieber

I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
minor functions and things to that program.
Super BAT files (to use archaic MS-DOS terms)... A collection of,
essentially, individual shell commands with minimal "if" type logic and
parameter substitution (you can expand that to things like editor
scripting -- still mostly just a bunch of the same commands one would
type at a keyboard, just automated).

Python has never struck me as a "scripting" language by itself.
REXX, OTOH, still has a "scripting" feel (though not as much as the
Amiga version, ARexx) since, by default, any statement that does not
parse as a REXX statement is automatically passed to the currently
defined command shell for execution -- in effect, rather than a BAT file
being command shell statements with an extention of script-language
logic, REXX is a language with implicit command shell capability.
Assisted by the fact that the command shell can be changed mid-stream,
so any application that is REXX-aware (on the Amiga, that was nearly
everything as the mechanism was built on top of the native IPC system)
could be scripted -- and "glued" to another... Set the command shell to
a database engine, execute database queries, assign the result to a
local variable, switch command shell to word processor, issue commands
to format the database data into word processor.

REXX also had the ability to register function libraries -- so if
such were defined for the applications, one could access the
applications without passing through the command shell method. This
latter method would be closest to the M$ COM model.
--
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,731
Messages
2,569,432
Members
44,832
Latest member
GlennSmall

Latest Threads

Top