🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41910@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, gvw@epcc.ed.ac.uk (Greg Wilson) writes:
|> [apologies if this is a re-post --- problems first time around]
|> 
|> Hello.  I am looking for a small language to use and modify for teaching
|> purposes.  Features I want include:
|> 
|> * small, simple implementation in C (at most one week for a senior
|>   student with a C/Unix background to read and understand source).
|> 
|> * very simple syntax --- preferably only a single syntactic form,
|>   like Scheme, Logo, and Forth.
|> 
|> * textual scoping of variables (which (sigh) rules out Logo itself)
|> 
|> * logical, integer, floating-point, and string data types (I'm
|>   happy to have single characters treated as 1-length strings)
|>  ...
You can try siod (Scheme In One Defun, Version 2.4)
available at world.std.com, BU.EDU (128.197.2.6), or try archie.
(If you like, I can mail it to you.)

Some advertisement copied from an other news group copied from \ldots:
(Don't know the original poster)
vvvvvv
What is SIOD? It is an extremely small scheme implementation in C
arranged as set of subroutines that can be called from any main
program for the purpose of introducing an interpreted extension
language.

How small is it? Compiling using the VAX/VMS C compiler results in a
total of 16333 bytes of executable code.

What features?
 * Lisp calls C and C calls lisp transparently
 * no hassle in C coded functions due to GC or EVAL considerations.
 * ability to hook into the read-eval-print loop without modifying the code.
 * ability to extend the datatypes without modifying the code.
 * mark-and-sweep or stop-and-copy GC selectable at runtime.
 * readmacros
 * macros
 * backquote (quasi-quote)
 * optionally loadable pratt (infix-language) parser

Platforms?
 * VAX/VMS * VAX UNIX * SUN-3 * SUN-4 * AMIGA * MACINTOSH * MIPS * CRAY
^^^^^^^

If you wan't a more complex system try kernel, a dynamic lisp interpreter
published (source code included) at Addison Wesley
(or try my extensions to it).

MfG

Klaus Elsbernd

elsbernd@dfki.uni-kl.de
elsbernd@informatik.uni-kl.de

In article <41910@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> gvw@epcc.ed.ac.uk (Greg Wilson) writes:
>[apologies if this is a re-post --- problems first time around]
>
>Hello.  I am looking for a small language to use and modify for teaching
>purposes.  Features I want include:
>
>* small, simple implementation in C (at most one week for a senior
>  student with a C/Unix background to read and understand source).
>
>* very simple syntax --- preferably only a single syntactic form,
>  like Scheme, Logo, and Forth.
>
>* textual scoping of variables (which (sigh) rules out Logo itself)
>
>* logical, integer, floating-point, and string data types (I'm
>  happy to have single characters treated as 1-length strings)
>
    Your goals are mutually exclusive. You ask for a simple language
and then want to include many complicated features. There are versions
of Forth available in the form of C programs. You can get a good one
by ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu as part of the gnu collection. Look for 
the file called tile.2.1.tar.Z. Since it is written in C and does
not exactly follow usual Forth practices, it is named a "threaded
interpretive language" or TIL.
 
>  I regularly lambast physicists for using "old" languages like Fortran,
>  so I feel I should set a good example for students by using some
>  modern ideas myself)
  As a user of Fortran, I must protest the idea that Fortran is an 
old language. Since structured programming concepts were introduced
into Fortran many years ago, there are no "modern" programming ideas
that are need in Fortran to accomplish its purpose of scientific
and mathematical computation. The mathematical notation used by 
physicists is an old language and they don't have much interest in
changing it. So why should they want to switch from Fortran? Perhaps
if other computing languages included things like exponential operations
( ** ), and complex number arithmetic there would be more reason to use
something besides Fortran.
  The best new idea that physicists (and every other programmer) should
use is extensive commenting so human beings can read source listings.
That would be the greatest advance since digital computers were invented.
   Of course if you want a language that can be modified to include any
new idea that you want to try, Forth is a very good choice. And I've
heard that Lisp and Scheme are good for that too.

Mike Coughlin writes:
>   As a user of Fortran, I must protest the idea that Fortran is an 
> old language. Since structured programming concepts were introduced
> into Fortran many years ago, there are no "modern" programming ideas
> that are need in Fortran to accomplish its purpose of scientific
> and mathematical computation. The mathematical notation used by 

Of course one can express "scientific and mathematical computations"
in Fortran, C, TeX, PostScript, etc.  However, the tremendous interest
in "object-oriented" programming among engineers and scientists shows
that they have finally come to realize that the structure and
organization of data are important---not exactly one of Fortran's
strong points.

--
John Baugh
jwb@eos.ncsu.edu

In article <1992Aug21.144444.11414@ncsu.edu> jwb@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
!Mike Coughlin writes:
	[...Fortran works...]

!Of course one can express "scientific and mathematical computations"
!in Fortran, C, TeX, PostScript, etc.  However, the tremendous interest
!in "object-oriented" programming among engineers and scientists shows
!that they have finally come to realize that the structure and
!organization of data are important---not exactly one of Fortran's
!strong points.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Have you taken a look at Fortran-90 lately?  If you have, you'll have
noted that the structure and organization of data are indeed strong
points in F90.  As far as the recent (1980-present) fashionable
interest in object-oriented this-and-that, F90 supports data-hiding via
modules, generic subprograms, operator and function overloading...

F90 is not a 'small language', but it is an excellent tool in its
appropriate application domain (science and engineering).  People seem
to be especially reluctant to 'update' their opinions regarding
Fortran, and casting the baby out with the bathwater is all too
common.

!--
!John Baugh
!jwb@eos.ncsu.edu


-- 
Lou Glassy (oususalg@cs.montana.edu)                  C Delenda Est

In article <1992Aug21.144444.11414@ncsu.edu> jwb@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
>Mike Coughlin writes:
>>   As a user of Fortran, I must protest the idea that Fortran is an 
>> old language. Since structured programming concepts were introduced
>> into Fortran many years ago, there are no "modern" programming ideas
>> that are need in Fortran to accomplish its purpose of scientific
>> and mathematical computation. The mathematical notation used by 
>
>Of course one can express "scientific and mathematical computations"
>in Fortran, C, TeX, PostScript, etc.  However, the tremendous interest
>in "object-oriented" programming among engineers and scientists shows
>that they have finally come to realize that the structure and
>organization of data are important---not exactly one of Fortran's
>strong points.

Not to fan a flame war, but indeed C++ is _excellent_ for working with
complex numbers, etc.  And, nobody will accuse you of using an outdated
language.

I used Fortran up until about 2 years ago.  It does do about anything that
you want, and DEC's Fortran compiler for VMS is probably the best single
compiler that I've ever met (in terms of optimization).  But, the lack
of structures, pointers, and recursion are crippling.  I know that they are
adding/have added some of these features, but they still aren't everywhere,
yet.

C is an excellent language for scientific stuff, and C++ even better.

Check out the flame-war du jour in soc.college for more information on
how Scheme "is great|sucks" compared to C which "is great|sucks".

	Darrin
-- 

mdchaney@iubacs mdchaney@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu mdchaney@rose.ucs.indiana.edu

"It's a marvel of vegetable containment..."

In article <1992Aug21.153733.5683@coe.montana.edu> oususalg@cs.montana.edu (Glassy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.144444.11414@ncsu.edu> jwb@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
>!Mike Coughlin writes:
>	[...Fortran works...]
>
>!Of course one can express "scientific and mathematical computations"
>!in Fortran, C, TeX, PostScript, etc.  However, the tremendous interest
>!in "object-oriented" programming among engineers and scientists shows
>!that they have finally come to realize that the structure and
>!organization of data are important---not exactly one of Fortran's
>!strong points.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Have you taken a look at Fortran-90 lately?  If you have, you'll have
>noted that the structure and organization of data are indeed strong
>points in F90.  As far as the recent (1980-present) fashionable
>interest in object-oriented this-and-that, F90 supports data-hiding via
>modules, generic subprograms, operator and function overloading...

Seeing as how I haven't seen any Fortran-90 compilers around, the
improved features in this "new" language are largely irrelevant.  From
what I can see, most of the people that have been writing code in
Fortran are still using the features of Fortran-77.  

If you develop F90 code, you're throwing away portability, because
it's not clear that many people actually have access to a F90
compiler.  It certainly isn't something that gets bundled as the
"standard Fortran compiler" on the university mainframes.  If YOU
develop F90 code, I certainly won't be able to use it, because between
the dozen or so different systems I have access to, NONE of them has
an F90 compiler.  Several of them have quite nice F77 compilers...
All of them have C (in at least K&R form), some have C++, most have
Lisp, and some have Forth.  No F90 on the list...

The even BIGGER problem is the fact that these improved features
really make it a new language.  The fact that it may be backwards
compatible is NOT a bonus.  It just means that a lot of people will
continue to write "old style" FORTRAN code, and just ignore the
features that have been added.  And the people that want to go OOP
will have to do it in what is, in essence, a new language.  And
this means that there's not much cost to ACTUALLY going to a new
language, like C++.

Scientists and engineers use FORTRAN because it is the language that
they were taught.  I would be surprised if there are very many
universities that are teaching their new undergrads FORTRAN-90 right
now.  They're either teaching F77, because they have (a) Texts for
that, (b) Compilers for that, and (c) Instructors with 15 years of
experience at teaching FORTRAN-77.

FORTRAN 77 will never die - like it or not - and I seriously doubt
that it will be supplanted by FORTRAN 90.

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program

In article <174fbuINNppn@agate.berkeley.edu>, bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
> Could everyone who follows up this flame war please remove
> comp.lang.logo from the newsgroup list?  Thank you.

Likewise for comp.lang.scheme, please.
-- 
Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)