Printable View
That would be a logical Or. Bitwise Or is combination. How about ~ ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Code:// logical Or
if (expr1 ? expr2)
{
}
// bitwise Or
if (var1 ~ var2)
{
}
Why not? No point having things different just for the sake of being different. Only if it is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Well lets hear everyone elses opinion on it before making all operators the same as C. I really hate to think we are remaking C++, ya know.
Agree with penagate. If you need to change operators in order to be different from C, then perhaps you should just use C.
Have you already decided what higher-level features you have? Is this a procedural, functional, object-oriented, logic-oriented, or multi-paradigm language? What paradigms do you support and how? What features do you have to support these paradigms?
Syntax is so irrelevant compared to these fundamental questions.
Well all I can think of for now is that it's going to be object oriented but not 100% object oriented like the .NET languages are. Plus you will be able to call built in functions on demand without having to type This.That.What.Huh.w00t to access built in functions. Makes it more user friendly that way and allows easier code readability.
Also, VB did operators different from C++. Why can't I for LightFusion? It's only gonna be a couple differences anyways.
I agree 100% with CornedBee and Penagate. I don't see any reason to change our operators just to be different. That doesn't make sense to me. Let our difference stand out in the fact that we are faster and have a larger library and things like that.
Chem, you mentioned that you would like to help with the IDE, but since it is in C++ and you knwo MASM, do you want to be on the project and help with the library?
CornedBee, Can you explain the differences between the things you listed? What I mean is can't a language be object-oriented and functional? What is multi-paradigm? Could you spell out each thing you listed with a short list of benefits of each?Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
Fine the operators will be the same as C. Damn. :(
But lets keep the syntax different from C++ and VB a tad, and not favor one over the other.
We can, I just don't see the point in confusing people. Especially with operators. I like ? for OR, but in other languages that is part of a 1-line if and only if (IIF) statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
IIF is something we will definitely have in LF and we will not screw it up like it was in VB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
They already have one, eyeRmonkey. It's the ? conditional operator in C++. But I'm sure you already knew that.
I'm not against the ? idea if you want to do it. Also that listing of C# operators doesn't have integer divison (\) which is something I think we should have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Jacob and eyeRmonkey,
If you are both serious about this then we need to think about what distinguishing features Lightfusion will have. I don't want to waste time making another C++, as much as you don't. But at this rate, we might as well. So.... ?
I don't like the \ because we can save that operator for something else (if we can think of anything) and allow the compiler to do the integer division for integer declared variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
Well it's not gonna look too much like C++. Like for example, this simple Sub routine:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
VB Code:
Notice it's like VB and C++ combined. And we can even inline it:
VB Code:
Integer division discards the remainder. The / operator performs a floating point division and (if required) casts the result back to an integer by rounding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Thats not how integer division works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
You see? Both of those start out as integers and we can't assume that the user wants an integer result when they do 15 / 10 even if the variable we are storing it in is declared as an integer.Code:15 / 10 = 1.5
15 \ 10 = 1
15 % 10 = 5
Now we're back to syntax again... still haven't addressed things all the points CornedBee brought up. I.e. the fundamentals of the language ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Can you guys please go back a page and give me opinions on the last sets of logos so I can finish them up and post them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I already know that's how it's done. That's why I said have the compiler do it automatically. Sorry that I didn't word it properly in my last reply ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
You're not following... Integer division is completely different from floating point division of integers. How is the compiler supposed to know which the programmer wants? Mindreading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Well, I'm not sure what half the stuff CornedBee said meant. Can you explain some of it for me? Obviously I know what OO is, but I don't see why we can't be object oriented and be functional? Whats procedural and logic-oriented?Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I also am kinda wondering if the fact that Jake is using his compiler book will make things more difficult, because it will probably have syntax rules and stuff that we don't want.
Jake, I think it would be better if you did exactly as the book said (with no changes to make it like LF) and just learn from what the book says then bring that to LF. Keep the projects in separate folders. Otherwise you will try to change what the book is telling you to do and you might not get as much out of it. That is just my 2 cents though.
And I already mentioned the fundamentals a couple times in this thread, which is just for now until we decide to add more later on:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
We already know it's gonna focus on speed, and that it's gonna be RAD. And I was hoping to make our own super fast graphic related functions rather than wrapping DirectX in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Nevermind :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Speed is not a fundamental... If that is what you want as a core language feature, you program in assembly.
And how can it be object oriented, but not completely? You can't be mostly pregnant, or a little bit.. :)
Like penagate said, there is no way for the compiler to know what the user wants? Unless you mean this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
But that doesn't work because if you wanted to do:VB Code:
Then you couldn't because the \ operator wouldn't exist.VB Code:
Well lets wait for the book to arrive and see what it says. We will go along with the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
This is what I mean by not completely object oriented. Data types will not be objects. Built in functions will not be wrapped in class after class after class. Pointers will not be objects. You know, things like that. I didn't like those features in things like VB.NET.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Fine the \ operator is in.
Speed is fundamental I think. Can you explain why you think it isn't and give an example of a core language feature?Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Like Jake said, it just won't be AS object oriented as .NET. You will also be able to call functions from anywhere instead of blah.blah.MyFunction().
Jake, on that note. I think we should give an OPTION to force a function call from blah.blah.myFunc() because if someone is doing a big project (multiple people) they could accidently create functions with the same name or something. I think its nice to have it in there as an option. Do you agree?
That's why there are Public and Private, eyeRmonkey.
And also note that data types will not be objects as well.
Phew...
OK, let's see what I can do, Just a very short overview of varoius paradigms.
Programming languages can generally be divided into two types: declarative languages and imperative languages. The imperative languages work by instructing the computer to do things, leaving the end result at the sole understanding of the programmer. Declarative languages, in constrast, try to model the end result and leave the steps needed to reach it to the compiler/interpreter.
Declarative languages are further divided into logic-oriented languages and functional languages. Logic-oriented languages, like Prolog, model logical relations between various entities. The running of a program means figuring out which values fulfill these constraints. For example:
The nice thing about this is that you, as the programmer, don't care how the computer does all this stuff on the low level. Doing the same as this little program in C would take a hundred lines at least.Code:; The data of the system:
male Heinz.
male Sebastian.
male Matthias.
female Angela.
female Edith.
female Stefanie.
female Luise.
child_of Heinz Luise.
child_of Angela Edith.
child_of Matthias Heinz.
child_of Matthias Angela.
child_of Stefanie Heinz.
child_of Stefanie Angela.
child_of Sebastian Heinz.
child_of Sebastian Angela.
; Define relationships
grandchild_of p1 p2 -> ; p1 is grandchild of p2 if
child_of p1 t, ; p1 is a child of t and
child_of t p2. ; t is a child of p2
; Query relationships
:= grandchild_of Sebastian x ; Which x fulfill the grandchild_of relation with Sebastian?
; Output:
; x -> Luise
; x -> Edith
Functional languages, like Erlang and Haskell, model mathematical relationships. Again the low-level stuff is left to the compiler. The Quicksort algorithm in Haskell:
The algorithm can be done even shorter, in as little as three readable lines. The equivalent function in C has about 120 lines.Code:sort [x] = [x] ; One-element lists needn't be sorted.
sort [] = [] ; And neither do empty lists.
sort pivot:ls = ; For all others, which consist of a pivot element and everything else
left ++ [pivot] ++ right ; Take the left part, the pivot and the right part and concatenate them all
where
leftpart = [x <-- ls | x < pivot] ; The left part is all elements of ls that are smaller than the pivot
rightpart = [x <-- ls | x >= pivot] ; Whereas the right part contains the larger
left = sort leftpart ; Both sides are sorted recursively.
right = sort rightpart
The drawback of all declarative languages is speed. Only extremely smart compilers can make these languages execute with any reasonable speed. But there is much potential there, yet, and in a few years these languages will actively compete with fast imperative languages.
Imperative languages are far lower-level. Among them, the big grouping is in procedural and object-oriented languages. The difference is how a program is structured.
In procedural languages, such as C, the ultimate level of structuring is the procedure. A problem is divided into a collection of sub-problems by analyzing the processes that lead to its solution and dividing these processes into ever smaller pieces. These pieces are then coded out as direct instructions.
Object-oriented languages, such as Java, divide a problem differently. In OOD, a problem is considered to consist of interacting components, and the task is to model these objects and their interactions. For this, each object is considered to have properties and operations. Operations are approached as in procedural languages.
Multi-paradigm languages, such as C++, try to support several different paradigms. C++ inherently supports object-oriented and procedural programming, as well as data abstraction. However, advanced features of C++ allow an almost declarative approach to some problems, such as parser generation.
To sum up:
Logic-oriented:
+ Terse
- Slow - I'm not aware of any really fast implementation
- Weird way of thinking of problems.
Functional:
+ Terse
+ Natural way to model all problems that do not involve global state
- Often slow
- Problems with global state are tricky to model
Procedural
+ Fast
- Verbose
- Lack of code organization
Object-oriented
+ Fast
+ Natural way of thinking of problems
- Verbose
- Often leads to overdoing
Multi-paradigm:
+ Can choose paradigm to fit sub-problem
- Makes for huge and difficult languages
OK. A language dictates how you design an application. It dictates how you structure it, and then what kind of code you write to effect that structure. If we all put our heads together we could make the world's slowest C++ compiler. Does that reflect on the "speed" of the C++ language?Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
Core language features could mean many things. Like classes, and Object Oriented Design and Programming (obviously). Whether the language is a framework that shields the programmer from the core operating system (e.g. .NET), or whether it is merely a shorthand for assembly language and requires the programmer have an indepth understanding of the OS. Is it platform independent, or target specific. Features that give programmers more control, and power.
I can think of a few things just off the top of my head now.
- Implicit (compiler-assumed) constructors for structs. Reduce the barrier between structs and classes.
- Structured Exception Handling (SEH), and any possible extensions to it that increase its efficiency and/or power.
- Custom scope modifiers, and explicit inline dictation of procedure/variable accessibility.
- Access multiple implemented class methods by specifying the interface, without casting.
- Conditional assignment by expression evaluation. e.g.
Code:(x = 5) = (y = 9)
- Component-based application model where applications are built of reusable independent components. Each component contains its own modules and classes and can interface with other components and the main "application" module/component.
That is what namespacing is for. Not necessarily objects, but namespacing, modular structure. Saying where things are basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
Ok, I am trying to digest what you guys both just said.
For now I think we are looking at something like a cross between cross between the ease of use of VB and the power of C++ with any thing else thrown in that we feel is missing from either of those and an emphasis on speed during the whole process.
Does that sound good?
(Someone please go back to page 4 and 5 and give me opinions on the logos.)
The ? operator is like the VB IIf statement.
The true part is returned if the condition is, obviously, true. False if it isn't. I think you should keep this, as CornedBee said, would require less learning to get into your language (as I assume most C++ programmers would know this by default).Code:variable = condition ? true : false
EDIT: Pfft. 3 hours of CS and this has already been answered. Hmmm, I even refreshed the page.
In answer to your question eyeRmonkey: That depends. I'm kinda writing the entire MiniShop application at the moment, but I could help with anything I can? Kinda like penagate is doing :p
chem
I agree chem. I know a few other languages use it too.
Chem, for the fourth time, do you still want to join our project to help make library functions since you know MASM or did you only want to work on the IDE?
Here are 2 more logos in .PNG so you can use them. I will edit the first post and add them in there in the "Support LF" section along with penagates button.
EDIT: Nevermind, I am removing those. I need to change them.
Yeah ok. I don't want to overload myself though with homework, MiniShop and this. Oh, and I've put my name down for 3D waypointing stuff for Mechwarrior battlegrounds (but I don't think they will be needing me anytime soon).
I'll help with libraries...when it comes to that. And I'll let someone else take care of the IDE. I could probably write a crappy one for starters in MASM too though.
*thinks*
chem
Also. Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. I tend to dose off halfway through a 40-post page, and skip to the last 5 new ones :)
Especially when its 3.17am here now.. :|
chem
No problem. I do that with the DoomSharp thread all the time.
BTW I wrote my first ASM program. Thanks a ton to Jake for this.
EDIT: I posted the wrong code the first time.Code:#include <stdio.h>
inline int test(int num)
{
_asm
{
mov eax, num
mov ebx, 5
imul eax, ebx
}
}
int main(void)
{
int num = 3;
printf("%d\n", test(3));
return 0;
}
More logos. I like them a lot. I forgot the ™ (alt+0153 if anyone cares) on the bottom right one and the whole middle colu,m, but I can fix that easily.
The middle column doesn't look that good. Thats why I made the blue darker. Which of these should I make .PNGs? Or should I make more adjustments first?
PS - w00t! 800 posts! Jake has 1 post to go until 3,000!
IDEA: I hate it how (in VB6) if you want to string together a lot of variables with some text is looks like crap and takes forever to read. e.g.
I think we should do something like this:VB Code:
I think { and } aren't used that often and as I mentioned earlier if you ever want to escape a character and use the real thing you can do it with a backslash (\):Code:sMyString = "{sName} is {lAge} years old and has {lKids}."
Do you guys like the sound of that? I am quite fond of it. We could easily make operations possible too:Code:lAge = 53
sMyString = "\{Welcome\} all {lAge} year olds!"
// This should yield: {Welcome} all 53 year olds!
Like I said, we could use something other than {} if you guys can think of something better, but I think that would work fine.Code:sAge = "42"
sMyString = "Your age is {Val(sAge) - 10}!!"
EDIT: I just that its hard to tell the difference between ( and { in Courier New. Maybe we could do something else like [[ and ]] or something.