31–40 of 96 posts
Latch concept is probably worth exploring further. Does anyone know of a language with native variables being a FIFO pipe? I.e. x = 1 // x now contains 1 x = 2 // x now contains 1 and 2 y = x // x now contains 2, y now contains 1 ... This sort of thing. Not as an add-on construct, but as a native part of the language.
Latch concept is probably worth exploring further. Does anyone know of a language with native variables being a FIFO pipe? I.e. x = 1 // x now contains 1 x = 2 // x now contains 1 and 2 y = x // x now contains 2, y now contains 1 ... This sort of thing. Not as an add-on construct, but as a native part of the language.
c := make(chan int, 2);
c c y <- c;//y=1
Still reading through, it's definitely piqued my interest. However, in the interest of consistency [as it translates to readability] two issues right away: 1) Get rid of the infix modifier to the filter. The statement is made that in ANI everything flows left to right. The infix operator while providing familiar 1+6->7 notation conflicts with the above flow statement. 1,6+->7 while not immediately familiar is easy to…
s/peeked/piqued
Latch concept is probably worth exploring further. Does anyone know of a language with native variables being a FIFO pipe? I.e. x = 1 // x now contains 1 x = 2 // x now contains 1 and 2 y = x // x now contains 2, y now contains 1 ... This sort of thing. Not as an add-on construct, but as a native part of the language.
Go channels?
Am I the only one thinking this code looks ugly and hacky. I would never code in this.
Frankly there isn't a language in existence that's "easy to read" and I'm kind of sick of seeing that claim. There's no way you can read anyone's code without knowing at least something about the language. That said, I really like the ideas this language is offering and I'm definitely interested in giving it at try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that Python is very easy to read for someone new to programming, particularly someone familiar with mathematical notation. Something like: for animal in ['dog', 'cat', 'bear']: print animal strikes me as intuitive and obvious, both absolutely and also relative to the equivalents in other languages.
That is not necessarily a sign of a good language, though. ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is also readable, and yet (thankfully!) we've mostly abandoned COBOL. And no, I'm not saying Python is bad, or like COBOL - just that readability and quality of a language are not necessarily related.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe you can claim Windows supported by Cygwin proxy.
Latch concept is probably worth exploring further. Does anyone know of a language with native variables being a FIFO pipe? I.e. x = 1 // x now contains 1 x = 2 // x now contains 1 and 2 y = x // x now contains 2, y now contains 1 ... This sort of thing. Not as an add-on construct, but as a native part of the language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I missed it at the time. BTW I wanted to avoid a double submit and I have been looking for some "search" box without success, it is probably obvious once you know where it is, where is it?
http://searchyc.com/
Am I the only one thinking this code looks ugly and hacky. I would never code in this.
I don't know... I kind of like it. It's different, especially where the '\' is concerned, but the syntax as a whole has one thing I really really really like: Much of the language doesn't use the shift-key, especially in the number-row. And where it does, it's frequently on easier-to-hit keys like ' Besides. You want ugly? Try K: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) . Or, heck, anything APL influence…
Plus, since all actions are based on arrays, the compiler can very easily target vector processors (including SSE) and make cache-effecient memory allocations. And since the language is small, the interpreter is usually small enough to fit in L1 cache.