weird(?) thought about programming languages

Albert Chou · Oct 22, 2003

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3982A.667BB4DC
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby specifically, though the
occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have Lisp-like macros added to
it resonates with it.

I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally learn what all this
talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough (I'm into chapter 15
so far) to understand a lot of it, generally speaking. I spent some
time trying to understand how it might be possible to use macros to give
Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me to read (for instance, I
find most of the function names I've encountered in Common Lisp to be
pretty incomprehensible). I even came across a USENET posting from
about 1991 from a guy who had done that with Scheme, but I couldn't find
any more references or a way to contact him. Further searches of the
Web turned up another discussion about making Scheme need fewer
parentheses that finally taught me what I think is a core lesson about
language syntax: it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the
punctuation of a programming language using its own mechanisms. By
punctuation I mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

The discussion about making a less-parenthesized version of Scheme
concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose reader (basically
parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task. Thus you can write as highly
abstracted and domain-specific a language as you like on top of
Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these parent languages
uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric characters to define
language tokens. Adding words (and even language constructs, in a
language that has macros) to a language's vocabulary is easy, but
redefining how to define words is impossible without stepping outside
the language. Of course, you could write a parser for your extended
language in the language you're extending, but my point is there's no
way to make a parser for the original language work with the extended
language if you violate the parent language's punctuation rules.

Whew, just wanted to say that somewhere that someone would understand
it. Comments welcome, but not necessary.

Al
--=20
Albert Davidson Chou, QA Manager
TeaLeaf Technology, Inc.
(415) 932-5031
(e-mail address removed) | http://www.TeaLeaf.com/

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3982A.667BB4DC
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.4418.33">
<TITLE>weird(?) thought about programming languages</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>


This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby =
specifically, though the occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have =
Lisp-like macros added to it resonates with it.

I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally =
learn what all this talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough =
(I'm into chapter 15 so far) to understand a lot of it, generally =
speaking.  I spent some time trying to understand how it might be =
possible to use macros to give Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier =
for me to read (for instance, I find most of the function names I've =
encountered in Common Lisp to be pretty incomprehensible).  I even =
came across a USENET posting from about 1991 from a guy who had done =
that with Scheme, but I couldn't find any more references or a way to =
contact him.  Further searches of the Web turned up another =
discussion about making Scheme need fewer parentheses that finally =
taught me what I think is a core lesson about language syntax:  =
it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the punctuation of a =
programming language using its own mechanisms.  By punctuation I =
mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

The discussion about making a less-parenthesized =
version of Scheme concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose =
reader (basically parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task.  Thus you =
can write as highly abstracted and domain-specific a language as you =
like on top of Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these =
parent languages uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric =
characters to define language tokens.  Adding words (and even =
language constructs, in a language that has macros) to a language's =
vocabulary is easy, but redefining how to define words is impossible =
without stepping outside the language.  Of course, you could write =
a parser for your extended language in the language you're extending, =
but my point is there's no way to make a parser for the original =
language work with the extended language if you violate the parent =
language's punctuation rules.

Whew, just wanted to say that somewhere that someone =
would understand it.  Comments welcome, but not necessary.

 

Al

 -- 

 Albert Davidson Chou, QA Manager

 TeaLeaf Technology, Inc.

 (415) 932-5031

 [email protected] | <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.TeaLeaf.com/">http://www.TeaLeaf.com/</A>


</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3982A.667BB4DC--

James Britt · Oct 22, 2003

Albert said:
This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby specifically, though the
occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have Lisp-like macros added to
it resonates with it.

I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally learn what all this
talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough (I'm into chapter 15
so far) to understand a lot of it, generally speaking.

I tried reading that, but after about three or four chapters I decided I
didn't know enough Lisp to follow along.

But I was motivated by the same reason, to better understand macros.

I spent some
time trying to understand how it might be possible to use macros to give
Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me to read (for instance, I
find most of the function names I've encountered in Common Lisp to be
pretty incomprehensible). I even came across a USENET posting from
about 1991 from a guy who had done that with Scheme, but I couldn't find
any more references or a way to contact him. Further searches of the
Web turned up another discussion about making Scheme need fewer
parentheses that finally taught me what I think is a core lesson about
language syntax: it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the
punctuation of a programming language using its own mechanisms. By
punctuation I mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

There was some similar discussion here about implementing a syntax in
Ruby that would allow one to manipulate XML using near-literal XPath
syntax (along the lines of ECMAScript and E4X).

The discussion about making a less-parenthesized version of Scheme
concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose reader (basically
parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task. Thus you can write as highly
abstracted and domain-specific a language as you like on top of
Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these parent languages
uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric characters to define
language tokens. Adding words (and even language constructs, in a
language that has macros) to a language's vocabulary is easy, but
redefining how to define words is impossible without stepping outside
the language. Of course, you could write a parser for your extended
language in the language you're extending, but my point is there's no
way to make a parser for the original language work with the extended
language if you violate the parent language's punctuation rules.

I believe Phil Thomson has done some work creating a meta-language in
Ruby to allow QA/testers to write and run scripts that are, techincally,
Ruby, but do not require any profound understanding of Ruby's nuts and
bolts. (And Ruby itself is a meta-language on top of C.)

That sort of thing, as well as Graham's On Lisp macro stuff, is along
the lines of "build a language, not an application."[0]

James

[0] http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppllc/papers/1998_03.html

Phil Tomson · Oct 22, 2003

Albert Chou wrote:

I believe Phil Thomson has done some work creating a meta-language in
Ruby to allow QA/testers to write and run scripts that are, techincally,
Ruby, but do not require any profound understanding of Ruby's nuts and
bolts. (And Ruby itself is a meta-language on top of C.)

It was a hardware description language (RHDL). Basically I just took
advantage of how easy it is to pass code blocks around in Ruby and used
that feature to create a domain-specific language without having to write
a special parser.

Phil

Chris Pine · Oct 22, 2003

If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then you
could do it... in a way, I think.

As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.

Chris

Phil Tomson · Oct 22, 2003

If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then you
could do it... in a way, I think.

As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.

It would be tremendously cool if Ruby included access to it's own parser
as an object/module.

Phil

Aaron Son · Oct 22, 2003

If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then you
could do it... in a way, I think.

As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.

Smalltalk has late-bound mutable classes, and the class responsible for
parsing is written in Smalltalk.

--Aaron

How can I arrange a series of radio buttons?	2	Jan 25, 2024
Weird Behavior with Rays in C and OpenGL	4	Feb 13, 2024
How to position the tooltip comment on these buttons?	9	Nov 4, 2023
I need help fixing my website	2	Oct 15, 2023
Need assistance finetuning HTML, CSS, Javascript - sticky header issue	3	Feb 25, 2022
About as basic "Newbie-Question" that you can get.	3	Sep 4, 2023
SendGrid email issue in responsive Gmail	1	Nov 4, 2021
exerb and a threaded server	0	Sep 23, 2003

weird(?) thought about programming languages

Albert Chou

James Britt

Phil Tomson

Chris Pine

Phil Tomson

Aaron Son

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest Threads