From: Andy on
On Jan 14, 9:57 am, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
> I don't agree here (perhaps as a compiler writer you are thinking of
> "implementation" in terms of generated target code - then I'd agree).
> Kids use Logo to learn about programming concepts, and how to get the
> computer to do what you want it to do.  They learn to write things like:
>
> TO SQUARE :size
> REPEAT 4 [ FD :size RT 90 ]
> END
>
> This is entirely about writing an imperative implementation of how you
> want the system to draw a square.
>
> Compare this to a sample program in a real functional programming
> language, Haskell:
>
> factorial 0 = 1
> factorial n = n * factorial(n - 1)
>
> Here you tell the system what you want - you give a mathematical
> description of the results.  You don't care how it gets them - maybe it
> uses recursion, maybe it uses iteration, maybe it builds up a cache of
> calculated values as it goes along.
>

The LOGO interpreter/compiler is just as free to implement alternative
solutions to drawing a square as the Haskell compiler is of altering
the described recursive implementation of a factorial. Whether the
compiler is smart enough to do so has nothing to do with the language
being "procedural" or "functional".

Andy
From: Jasen Betts on
On 2010-01-15, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't,
> Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces
> that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors.

emacs comes close. :)



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Nick Keighley on
On 15 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
> In article <5de738e1-b64c-470c-a097-4020a2397...(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick Keighley  <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 13 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
> >> In article <4b4def88$0$22938$e4fe5...(a)news.xs4all.nl>,
> >> [Jongware] <so...(a)no.spam.net> wrote:


> >> >Aha -- wouldn't the logical end point be a programming language where
> >> >you type "word processor", save it as source, compile, and have a word
> >> >processor?
>
> >> Why bother to compile it?  Just have it interpret on-the-fly.
> >> That way you could even run it in interactive mode, and it's
> >> sufficiently high-level that even non-programmers could usefully use
> >> it.
>
> >> Unix people call this a "shell".
>
> >I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't,
> >Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces
> >that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors.
>
> Right.
> But all of them have the property that I can get a word processor by
> typing the name of a word processor that's installed on the system.

I thought you were claiming Unix uniquely had some sort of VHLL. Apart
from the weird embedded ones, don't *all* OSs have a way to run the
programs that are installed on them?

Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that
can create appications that aren't stored on the machine?


> My point was that the "primitives" provided by a shell (the programs
> installed on the system) give a pretty good approximation to
> [Jongware]'s suggestion of "type 'word processor' and get a word
> processor".

From: Lie Ryan on
On 01/18/10 21:34, Nick Keighley wrote:
> Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that
> can create appications that aren't stored on the machine?

app-get, emerge, yum?
From: toby on
On Jan 18, 5:34 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <5de738e1-b64c-470c-a097-4020a2397...(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Nick Keighley  <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 13 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote:
> > >> In article <4b4def88$0$22938$e4fe5...(a)news.xs4all.nl>,
> > >> [Jongware] <so...(a)no.spam.net> wrote:
> > >> >Aha -- wouldn't the logical end point be a programming language where
> > >> >you type "word processor", save it as source, compile, and have a word
> > >> >processor?
>
> > >> Why bother to compile it?  Just have it interpret on-the-fly.
> > >> That way you could even run it in interactive mode, and it's
> > >> sufficiently high-level that even non-programmers could usefully use
> > >> it.
>
> > >> Unix people call this a "shell".
>
> > >I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't,
> > >Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces
> > >that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors.
>
> > Right.
> > But all of them have the property that I can get a word processor by
> > typing the name of a word processor that's installed on the system.
>
> I thought you were claiming Unix uniquely had some sort of VHLL.

Compared to C, bash *is* a VHLL. Rewrite this in C:

grep -i blah.log |cut -d ' ' -f 4,7 |cut -c 2-12,23-36 |sort |uniq -c -
i


> Apart
> from the weird embedded ones, don't *all* OSs have a way to run the
> programs that are installed on them?
>
> Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that
> can create appications that aren't stored on the machine?
>
> > My point was that the "primitives" provided by a shell (the programs
> > installed on the system) give a pretty good approximation to
> > [Jongware]'s suggestion of "type 'word processor' and get a word
> > processor".