weird(?) thought about programming languages

Albert Chou · Albert Chou

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3982A.667BB4DC
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby specifically, though the
occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have Lisp-like macros added to
it resonates with it.

I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally learn what all this
talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough (I'm into chapter 15
so far) to understand a lot of it, generally speaking. I spent some
time trying to understand how it might be possible to use macros to give
Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me to read (for instance, I
find most of the function names I've encountered in Common Lisp to be
pretty incomprehensible). I even came across a USENET posting from
about 1991 from a guy who had done that with Scheme, but I couldn't find
any more references or a way to contact him. Further searches of the
Web turned up another discussion about making Scheme need fewer
parentheses that finally taught me what I think is a core lesson about
language syntax: it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the
punctuation of a programming language using its own mechanisms. By
punctuation I mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

The discussion about making a less-parenthesized version of Scheme
concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose reader (basically
parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task. Thus you can write as highly
abstracted and domain-specific a language as you like on top of
Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these parent languages
uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric characters to define
language tokens. Adding words (and even language constructs, in a
language that has macros) to a language's vocabulary is easy, but
redefining how to define words is impossible without stepping outside
the language. Of course, you could write a parser for your extended
language in the language you're extending, but my point is there's no
way to make a parser for the original language work with the extended
language if you violate the parent language's punctuation rules.

Whew, just wanted to say that somewhere that someone would understand
it. Comments welcome, but not necessary.

Al
--=20
Albert Davidson Chou, QA Manager
TeaLeaf Technology, Inc.
(415) 932-5031
[email]AChou@TeaLeaf.com[/email] | [url]http://www.TeaLeaf.com/[/url]

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3982A.667BB4DC
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.4418.33">
<TITLE>weird(?) thought about programming languages</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>


This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby =
specifically, though the occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have =
Lisp-like macros added to it resonates with it.

I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally =
learn what all this talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough =
(I'm into chapter 15 so far) to understand a lot of it, generally =
speaking.  I spent some time trying to understand how it might be =
possible to use macros to give Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier =
for me to read (for instance, I find most of the function names I've =
encountered in Common Lisp to be pretty incomprehensible).  I even =
came across a USENET posting from about 1991 from a guy who had done =
that with Scheme, but I couldn't find any more references or a way to =
contact him.  Further searches of the Web turned up another =
discussion about making Scheme need fewer parentheses that finally =
taught me what I think is a core lesson about language syntax:  =
it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the punctuation of a =
programming language using its own mechanisms.  By punctuation I =
mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

The discussion about making a less-parenthesized =
version of Scheme concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose =
reader (basically parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task.  Thus you =
can write as highly abstracted and domain-specific a language as you =
like on top of Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these =
parent languages uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric =
characters to define language tokens.  Adding words (and even =
language constructs, in a language that has macros) to a language's =
vocabulary is easy, but redefining how to define words is impossible =
without stepping outside the language.  Of course, you could write =
a parser for your extended language in the language you're extending, =
but my point is there's no way to make a parser for the original =
language work with the extended language if you violate the parent =
language's punctuation rules.

Whew, just wanted to say that somewhere that someone =
would understand it.  Comments welcome, but not necessary.

 

Al

 -- 

 Albert Davidson Chou, QA Manager

 TeaLeaf Technology, Inc.

 (415) 932-5031

 AChou@TeaLeaf.com | <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.TeaLeaf.com/">http://www.TeaLeaf.com/</A>


</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3982A.667BB4DC--

James Britt · James Britt

Albert Chou wrote:

> This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby specifically, though the
> occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have Lisp-like macros added to
> it resonates with it.
>
> I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally learn what all this
> talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough (I'm into chapter 15
> so far) to understand a lot of it, generally speaking.

I tried reading that, but after about three or four chapters I decided I
didn't know enough Lisp to follow along. :)

But I was motivated by the same reason, to better understand macros.

>

I spent some

> time trying to understand how it might be possible to use macros to give
> Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me to read (for instance, I
> find most of the function names I've encountered in Common Lisp to be
> pretty incomprehensible). I even came across a USENET posting from
> about 1991 from a guy who had done that with Scheme, but I couldn't find
> any more references or a way to contact him. Further searches of the
> Web turned up another discussion about making Scheme need fewer
> parentheses that finally taught me what I think is a core lesson about
> language syntax: it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the
> punctuation of a programming language using its own mechanisms. By
> punctuation I mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

There was some similar discussion here about implementing a syntax in
Ruby that would allow one to manipulate XML using near-literal XPath
syntax (along the lines of ECMAScript and E4X).

>
> The discussion about making a less-parenthesized version of Scheme
> concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose reader (basically
> parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task. Thus you can write as highly
> abstracted and domain-specific a language as you like on top of
> Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these parent languages
> uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric characters to define
> language tokens. Adding words (and even language constructs, in a
> language that has macros) to a language's vocabulary is easy, but
> redefining how to define words is impossible without stepping outside
> the language. Of course, you could write a parser for your extended
> language in the language you're extending, but my point is there's no
> way to make a parser for the original language work with the extended
> language if you violate the parent language's punctuation rules.

I believe Phil Thomson has done some work creating a meta-language in
Ruby to allow QA/testers to write and run scripts that are, techincally,
Ruby, but do not require any profound understanding of Ruby's nuts and
bolts. (And Ruby itself is a meta-language on top of C.)

That sort of thing, as well as Graham's On Lisp macro stuff, is along
the lines of "build a language, not an application."[0]

James

[0] [url]http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppllc/papers/1998_03.html[/url]

Phil Tomson · Phil Tomson

In article <3F95D220.7070906@seemyemail.com>,
James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@seemyemail.com> wrote:

>Albert Chou wrote:
>
>I believe Phil Thomson has done some work creating a meta-language in
>Ruby to allow QA/testers to write and run scripts that are, techincally,
>Ruby, but do not require any profound understanding of Ruby's nuts and
>bolts. (And Ruby itself is a meta-language on top of C.)

It was a hardware description language (RHDL). Basically I just took
advantage of how easy it is to pass code blocks around in Ruby and used
that feature to create a domain-specific language without having to write
a special parser.

Phil

Chris Pine · Chris Pine

If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then you
could do it... in a way, I think.

As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.

Chris

Phil Tomson · Phil Tomson

In article <048601c398ae$0ffd5d20$6501a8c0@blender>,
Chris Pine <cpine@hellotree.com> wrote:

>If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then you
>could do it... in a way, I think.
>
>As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.
>

It would be tremendously cool if Ruby included access to it's own parser
as an object/module.

Phil

Albert Chou · Albert Chou

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C398BD.8FD9B9BC
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I remember someone touting REBOL's built-in parsing capability. I have
no idea whether it's powerful enough to parse REBOL code itself.

Neat thought!

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Pine [mailto:cpine@hellotree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 8:05 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then
you
could do it... in a way, I think.

As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.

Chris

------_=_NextPart_001_01C398BD.8FD9B9BC
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.4418.33">
<TITLE>RE: weird(?) thought about programming languages</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>


I remember someone touting REBOL's built-in parsing =
capability.  I have no idea whether it's powerful enough to parse =
REBOL code itself.

Neat thought!

 

Al

 

-----Original Message-----

 From: Chris Pine [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:cpine@hellotree.com">mailto:cpine@h ellotree.com</A>]</FONT=

>

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 8:05 AM

 To: ruby-talk ML

 Subject: Re: weird(?) thought about programming =
languages


If a language included its own parser as an object in =
the language, then you

 could do it... in a way, I think.


As far as I know, no language goes that far, =
yet.


Chris


</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C398BD.8FD9B9BC--

Albert Chou · Albert Chou

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C398BE.E80A146E
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I remembered that test language that defined a lot of new
keywords-as-symbols for testing, though not its author. I'd love to do
that here, but I don't (yet?) have approval to use Ruby as the base
language for the test harness (I do have it in there as a tool for
as-needed use, though, and have written a few tools for the harness with
it). I skipped most of the native-XML thread here, so sorry for the
duplication.

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: James Britt [mailto:jamesUNDERBARb@seemyemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:40 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Albert Chou wrote:

> This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby specifically, though the
> occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have Lisp-like macros added

to

> it resonates with it.
>=20
> I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally learn what all

this

> talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough (I'm into chapter

15

> so far) to understand a lot of it, generally speaking. =20

I tried reading that, but after about three or four chapters I decided I

didn't know enough Lisp to follow along. :)

But I was motivated by the same reason, to better understand macros.

>

I spent some

> time trying to understand how it might be possible to use macros to

give

> Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me to read (for instance,

I

> find most of the function names I've encountered in Common Lisp to be
> pretty incomprehensible). I even came across a USENET posting from
> about 1991 from a guy who had done that with Scheme, but I couldn't

find

> any more references or a way to contact him. Further searches of the
> Web turned up another discussion about making Scheme need fewer
> parentheses that finally taught me what I think is a core lesson about
> language syntax: it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the
> punctuation of a programming language using its own mechanisms. By
> punctuation I mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

There was some similar discussion here about implementing a syntax in=20
Ruby that would allow one to manipulate XML using near-literal XPath=20
syntax (along the lines of ECMAScript and E4X).

>=20
> The discussion about making a less-parenthesized version of Scheme
> concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose reader (basically
> parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task. Thus you can write as highly
> abstracted and domain-specific a language as you like on top of
> Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these parent languages
> uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric characters to define
> language tokens. Adding words (and even language constructs, in a
> language that has macros) to a language's vocabulary is easy, but
> redefining how to define words is impossible without stepping outside
> the language. Of course, you could write a parser for your extended
> language in the language you're extending, but my point is there's no
> way to make a parser for the original language work with the extended
> language if you violate the parent language's punctuation rules.

I believe Phil Thomson has done some work creating a meta-language in=20
Ruby to allow QA/testers to write and run scripts that are, techincally,

Ruby, but do not require any profound understanding of Ruby's nuts and=20
bolts. (And Ruby itself is a meta-language on top of C.)

That sort of thing, as well as Graham's On Lisp macro stuff, is along=20
the lines of "build a language, not an application."[0]

James

[0] [url]http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppllc/papers/1998_03.html[/url]

------_=_NextPart_001_01C398BE.E80A146E
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.4418.33">
<TITLE>RE: weird(?) thought about programming languages</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>


I remembered that test language that defined a lot of =
new keywords-as-symbols for testing, though not its author.  I'd =
love to do that here, but I don't (yet?) have approval to use Ruby as =
the base language for the test harness (I do have it in there as a tool =
for as-needed use, though, and have written a few tools for the harness =
with it).  I skipped most of the native-XML thread here, so sorry =
for the duplication.

Al

 

-----Original Message-----

 From: James Britt [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:jamesUNDERBARb@seemyemail.com">mail to:jamesUNDERBARb@seemy=
email.com</A>]

 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:40 PM

 To: ruby-talk ML

 Subject: Re: weird(?) thought about programming =
languages


Albert Chou wrote:


> This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby =
specifically, though the

 > occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have =
Lisp-like macros added to

 > it resonates with it.

 > 

 > I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to =
finally learn what all this

 > talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read =
enough (I'm into chapter 15

 > so far) to understand a lot of it, generally =
speaking.  


I tried reading that, but after about three or four =
chapters I decided I 

 didn't know enough Lisp to follow along. :)


But I was motivated by the same reason, to better =
understand macros.


 >

 I spent some

 > time trying to understand how it might be =
possible to use macros to give

 > Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me =
to read (for instance, I

 > find most of the function names I've encountered =
in Common Lisp to be

 > pretty incomprehensible).  I even came =
across a USENET posting from

 > about 1991 from a guy who had done that with =
Scheme, but I couldn't find

 > any more references or a way to contact =
him.  Further searches of the

 > Web turned up another discussion about making =
Scheme need fewer

 > parentheses that finally taught me what I think =
is a core lesson about

 > language syntax:  it's difficult, if not =
impossible, to change the

 > punctuation of a programming language using its =
own mechanisms.  By

 > punctuation I mean how tokens are =
delimited/defined.


There was some similar discussion here about =
implementing a syntax in 

 Ruby that would allow one to manipulate XML using =
near-literal XPath 

 syntax (along the lines of ECMAScript and =
E4X).


> 

 > The discussion about making a less-parenthesized =
version of Scheme

 > concluded that you'd have to write a =
special-purpose reader (basically

 > parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task.  Thus =
you can write as highly

 > abstracted and domain-specific a language as you =
like on top of

 > Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way =
these parent languages

 > uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric =
characters to define

 > language tokens.  Adding words (and even =
language constructs, in a

 > language that has macros) to a language's =
vocabulary is easy, but

 > redefining how to define words is impossible =
without stepping outside

 > the language.  Of course, you could write a =
parser for your extended

 > language in the language you're extending, but =
my point is there's no

 > way to make a parser for the original language =
work with the extended

 > language if you violate the parent language's =
punctuation rules.


I believe Phil Thomson has done some work creating a =
meta-language in 

 Ruby to allow QA/testers to write and run scripts =
that are, techincally, 

 Ruby, but do not require any profound understanding =
of Ruby's nuts and 

 bolts. (And Ruby itself is a meta-language on top of =
C.)


That sort of thing, as well as Graham's On Lisp macro =
stuff, is along 

 the lines of "build a language, not an =
application."[0]


James


[0] <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppllc/papers/1998_03.html">htt=
p://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppllc/papers/1998_03.html</A>


</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C398BE.E80A146E--

Aaron Son · Aaron Son

On 2003-10-22, Chris Pine <cpine@hellotree.com> wrote:

> If a language included its own parser as an object in the language, then you
> could do it... in a way, I think.
>
> As far as I know, no language goes that far, yet.

Smalltalk has late-bound mutable classes, and the class responsible for
parsing is written in Smalltalk.

--Aaron

Col · Col

> I remember someone touting REBOL's built-in parsing capability. I have

> no idea whether it's powerful enough to parse REBOL code itself.
>
> Neat thought!

It's been done:

[url]http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=parse-code.r[/url]

Col

weird(?) thought about programming languages

Thread Tools

Display

weird(?) thought about programming languages

Similar Questions and Discussions

Thought problem solved - not so sure...

freelance web programming, web site design,c programming, java programming, VERY Low Cost web design and more

Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

matz: Which programming languages are you capable of?

This problem might be harder than I thought...

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Re: weird(?) thought about programming languages

Posting Permissions