Books and URLs for Scripting Languages, or creations thereof

Started by
16 comments, last by DakeDesu 21 years ago
quote:Original post by DakeDesu
I am sorry to have you have to write out that really decent explanation out--I am sure that you must not like writting that over and over in the forums

I have no problems whatsoever with committing gratuitous acts of Lisp advocacy.
Advertisement
The process you descibed is not only typcial of Lisp. There are several languages, mostly from the period of Lisp, that have their langauge described in a similar fashion.

Forth does it similar:

4 + 5 * 7 would become 5 7 * 4 +, and the only difference is the function or operator is at the end, and there are no brackets. Though Lisp has been defined for use in an interactive Shell (afaik), which Forth was defined to be an effecient language--though I do not really know Forth as much as I should.

(Time to add researching Forth better to my list)
[ Six Hour Game Contest | ( Thread | Blog | Wiki | 6hour Bio ) ][ Website | (Blog | Gallery ) ]
quote:Original post by DakeDesu
The process you descibed is not only typcial of Lisp.

What I described is typical of languages that layer arbitrary syntax rules over their internal representation.
quote:Original post by DakeDesu
The process you descibed is not only typcial of Lisp.

quote:Original post by SabreMan
What I described is typical of languages that layer arbitrary syntax rules over their internal representation.


Exactly--something that I am sure you get people going ''1 r teh l33tzors--cow cn i r make l33t perl halflife in five minues,'' more than enough times than giving the answer warrents. Just note that answering my question will make it worse (has to do with the language---er.. said too much).

Thanks for point out the terms used for this idea--helps me with the language quite a bit more
[ Six Hour Game Contest | ( Thread | Blog | Wiki | 6hour Bio ) ][ Website | (Blog | Gallery ) ]
quote:Original post by rohde
I have some questions about this book and since the author is in the house this is a magnificent opportunity

1. Your book is called "game" scripting - but can it be used as a general intro to compilers/intepreters as well (i.e. I''m not as interested in the game approach as a more general one).

2. What language do you use in implementation? C++?


1. Absolutely-- the general theme of the book is how this technology applies to game development, but scripting is scripting and compilers are compilers. You can take what you learn here and write a scripting system for a word processor just as easily, and the [large] chapters on developing assemblers, compilers and virtual machines are first and foremost about the general theory itself. I then bring it "back down" to game development later in the book.

2. C for the most part. There are occasional cues to C++ programmers on where to do their own thing, but it''s generally a good idea to stick to C in books, since class heirarchies tend to get a little unweildly for people who just want to learn how something works. Of course any large scale project should be at least somewhat object oriented, but in the case of books it''s usually just easier to see straight functions and structures to get the job done. Anyone proficient in C++ already will have no trouble OOPifying it themselves.
quote:Original post by AlexV
1. Absolutely-- the general theme of the book is how this technology applies to game development, but scripting is scripting and compilers are compilers. You can take what you learn here and write a scripting system for a word processor just as easily, and the [large] chapters on developing assemblers, compilers and virtual machines are first and foremost about the general theory itself. I then bring it "back down" to game development later in the book.


Just what I wanted to hear Think I'll purchase it (heading over to Amazon)...

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.

[edited by - rohde on April 11, 2003 4:19:55 PM]
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." -Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680). | My blog
quote:Original post by SabreMan
What I described is typical of languages that layer arbitrary syntax rules over their internal representation.

I read some comment on comp.object which said that McCarthy was going to make Lisp's syntax more complex if he had time. I don't know if that meant providing a means to use infix notation. Whatever the case, the group was commenting that the merits of Lisp's simple syntax weren't necessary realised by McCarthy at the time.

[edited by - NotAnAnonymousPoster on April 11, 2003 4:57:53 PM]
"C combines all the power of assembly language with all the ease of use of assembly language"
quote:Original post by NotAnAnonymousPoster
I read some comment on comp.object which said that McCarthy was going to make Lisp''s syntax more complex if he had time.

AFAIK, he was intending to layer m-expressions over s-expressions. If you''re talking about the thread I''m thinking of, certain people were using that as leverage for attacking s-expression syntax, which is a rather silly approach. McCarthy''s intentions 40+ years ago have little to do with the value of s-expressions now.
quote:
I don''t know if that meant providing a means to use infix notation.

Lisp has a means to use infix notation: reader macros.
quote:
Whatever the case, the group was commenting that the merits of Lisp''s simple syntax weren''t necessary realised by McCarthy at the time.

It strikes me as being a typical Lisp syntax argument.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement