Whatever programming language(s) you program in frequently, I'm betting there are blocks or sections of code that you find yourself writing in some variation over and over and over again. So I have two questions: 1. What are they? Be as specific as you need to be. 2. What syntax would you replace them make your life easier? Don't think in terms of existing languages here! How would you write it if you could. (Understand of course that I'm talking about a level of abstraction that fully specifies the actions needed to take place; for example you might say, "render awesome looking fps please" but that doesn't tell the computer how to do what you want.) Beyond that, feel free to tell me what you'd like to see (or not see) in a programming language. My goal is to design a new programming language (with help; open source, gpl, you get the picture) that compiles down thru C to executables (I'm thinking I could use gcc as an intermediate step). Just to get you thinking outside C and Java, one possible syntax structure is "subject verb object" instead of the usual "verb subject object" or "verb object subject". Arguably OOP uses the SVO structure by doing Subject.doSomething(Object); however the point is we can even write it with the dot if we want. Forget all the syntax and structure you know and think about what you WANT. The PC already has it's binary; it's happy. The only other thing we need in a language is to make US, the programmer happy. [edited by - bob_the_third on February 6, 2004 5:36:23 PM]

Lucientquiet: I'm definitely with you on the GUI tools; it's the one thing that keeps me (and I MEAN the one thing) with VB. Because I can sit down and whip out a Windows app in 10 minutes.

I want to see if I really understood what you said; are you kind of talking about a language that uses context along with syntax to determine meaning? If so I definitely think that would be cool and it's something I'd like to see. If not, I must have missed you and perhaps a little more elaboration would help my sleep-addled brain.



I don't know about you, but I spend way too much of my time trying to deal with indention to keep my code readable. I don't know if there's a better alternative that wouldn't be a workaround, but...

Also for-loops, do-loops, while-loops. If-else. All these things are cludgy. My seed-of-a-thought (SOAT ) right now is templates on steroids. Basically the language could be a collection of rules which would be templates that could be structured HOWEVER you want and they would then map directly to C/C++ language source files. The compiler would do pattern matching to determine the pattern you were applying. Context-sensitivty would be great too. In addition, the templates could be defined with the code from the language itself. Basically a language that can be redefined/extended at any point in any way (or at least ALMOST any way; not really just any way).

Also I was thinking about having it use an imports approach except not just with methods, but with language constructs, operators, EVERYTHING. Everything is modular and can be overloaded/overridden.

The real trick here would be to set up a highly functional core language that people could use without having to define all sorts of macros (which would offset the efficiency gains) themselves. The macros would be built by those who wanted to contribute to the ongoing development of the language.

One thing I really like about Java is that it goes all the way from high-level to low-level; you can take whatever view you want. I'd like to see this in the "perfect" language. Commands, operators, etc. can be very high-level and have lower-level definitions that you can override if you want. For example in a rendering package, you might have:

"cull P's backfaces" which could be overriden if you found a better algorithm. Notice that I used an apostrophe for a possessive; I don't think I've ever seen THAT in a programming language, but it's an idea (I'm not saying I'm sold on it; I'm just not discounting it right off the bat. The mantra right now is keep an open mind. ). Also notice that P is an object with some sort of polygon-mesh definition and cull is one of the methods defined for that object; backfaces is one of its members.

By the way, if this concept takes form I have plans of beginning a language specification project (completely open; no $$ involved here, no patents etc.; I just want a GOOD language). The goal is basically to produce a compiler that produces executables, but it can compile to an intermediary language.

Good ideas/points. Let's keep this discussion going. With all the debate on languages around here, I'd say it's worth our while to work as a community to "build a better mouse-trap."

[edited by - bob_the_third on February 6, 2004 6:33:44 PM]

Fruny: Do you mean that Python is the perfect language or that what I described IS Python?

One potential problem I see with my ideas so far (and that would have to be considered when designing a spec) is without a certain core amount of structure the user will be paralyzed with indecision and won''t be able to get anything done.

So there should be a well-specified rule-set. I lean toward natural-language style in some cases, but not all. Perhaps a mix or perhaps even allowing the programmer to switch between styles at in the same program. They could code in NL, functional, oop, structural, back to NL, etc. Mix and match. But there has to be a syntax (or syntaxes.)

In fact, I envision at least four basic syntaxes:

1. Natural language style syntax (subject verb object modifier)
2. OOP style syntax (subject.verb(object,object,modifier,object...)
3. Structural/procedural

  int myFunc( int a )  {    if ( a>2 )    {      return a*2;    }    else    {       return a;    }  }

4. Functional (more of pure mathematical/algorithmic definitions; for more on this google "Functional Programming").

The user can mix and match and the language should detect the syntax being used. Each of these should be well-defined in terms of structure. They should still be extensible in terms of methods, functions, types, and operators.

You guys are posting faster than I can complete my [long winded] posts!

varanid: What I mean by context sensitive is that what a particular code fragment (such as statement, operator, or method) actually means in terms of execution is based on the code that modifies it. An example would be one of the code fragments I gave earlier:

cull P''s backfaces

P is an object.
It has backfaces as part of it''s definition.
It has defined "cull" to be a method that operates on it to remove unwanted faces from its mesh.

It is possible that "cull" could be used by another object in another way. For example, a database might "cull" out records (although they could just call it "delete" or "remove"). In this case we could have:

cull P''s backfacescull records from Database where Income > $25,000

"cull" is used in both, but has different meanings based on context.

Now you said this would be difficult. *scratches head* I think you''re probably right. But I don''t think it''s impossible or even beyond the scope of modern technology.