My vision of the Ultimate Programming Language: You tell it what you want to be done, and it does what you were thinking about. Like the Holodecks in Star Trek. :D


"Whoever performs only his duty is not doing his duty." --Bahya ibn Pakuda

The best programming language would hmmm have a virtual donkey in the back working the controls(it is in the compiler of course). Hmmm also the donkey would fix all of your programming mistakes. Then you just give the donkey a couple of virtual carrots and it will create whatever type of program, no matter how complicated, for you. The languages name would "donk++"..........do I have an obession with donkeys ? :-p

----------------------------
----------------------------
"This just goes to show that there are only two kinds of people in this world, stupid people... and me."

quote: Original post by bogdanontanu

YOU CANT EVEN THINK of anything else but C/C++ or clones ...OMG... looks like everyone (no offence) is brainwashed....

Hmm... Here we are moving towards functional programming, and along comes some guy who says that we shouldn''t restrict ourselves to looking only at C/C++ and related languages

quote: Original post by CobraA1
My vision of the Ultimate Programming Language: You tell it what you want to be done, and it does what you were thinking about.

There ARE some more or less related concepts being researched. I saw this a while ago in one of VoodooExtreme''s "Ask Sweeney" features. A functional language, armed with an extended type system, could have the compiler check for you whether your code actually does what the specification tells it to do. Sweeney''s example was specifying a function used to sort arrays. You would tell it to "sort my array using this sorting function", handing it a pointer to the sorting function. If the sorting function you pass doesn''t actually sort, you''d get a compiler error.

Sounds good to me.

quote: Original post by bogdanontanu

Poor guys ...

YOU CANT EVEN THINK of anything else but C/C++ or clones ...OMG... looks like everyone (no offence) is brainwashed....

lol

ever think to ASM, FORTH, PASCAL?

no i think u dont...maybe you dont even know how...i like preprocessor too much .. once again i am pertified OMG !

Bogdan

Once, I thought you were an idiot.
Now, I stand confirmed. You didn''t even bother to read the thread did you?

We were talking about features we like. It so happens there''s a lot of them in C/C++. Pascal ain''t all that different from C either. Assembler only just qualifies as a language ( and yes I know how to use it ).
We were discussing haskell. Hardly a C/C++ clone.
But then, I guess that you have trouble reading words longer than three or four letters, ''cause of your l33t ASM skills.




People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Eiffel! :-)

I''d like to see a language that has proper support for componentisation not the kind of hacked-together-use-millions-of-casts(ugh!)-platform-dependence of COM.

I''d like a language with proper interface documentation.

"That's not a bug, it's a feature!"
--me

this has prolly been said before 100''s of time but english (or your mother language)
"while (x<100)"
...
vs
"do this 1000 times"
....
but it shouldnt even be like that
it should be like
"i wanna know who hit on the idea of ...."

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

quote: Original post by zedzeek

this has prolly been said before 100''s of time but english (or your mother language)

The problem with English (and any other "normal" language used by humans), is that it''s very hard to interpret, even by humans. Think hard, how many communication errors do you make every day? Hundreds, even if they are not always so serious.

-Jussi

"Your socks stink"

A language that allows the syntax and code to be formatted as basic data.

LISP allowes this. This is a serious concept and try to follow.

This LISP statement: (+ 5 6) adds 5 and 6 together.

However, (+ 5 6) is also a LISP data structure. It is a list containing 3 items: + and 5 and 6. The first item is an atom or symbol, and the 2nd and 3rd items are 5 and 6.

What is the significance of this? The program can disect it's own code. It can actually determine what it is doing. It can also create its own code on the fly.

Now the LISP language is getting old, but the concept is fantastic.

Update: I edited this post because I had a syntactical error in my LISP statement. It in no way changes the significance of LISP or what I was saying. The syntactical error is still in delphi3d's quote of me a few posts below.



Edited by - bishop_pass on October 27, 2000 8:57:33 PM

quote:
good points, except for the preprocessor. That would actually be the FIRST thing I''d get rid of. Why would anyone want to have one of those?

I thought it was a good idea, but not like the C/C++ one. It should be something that lets you write code that writes code. You can get a lot of funky stuff going with C++ templates, but the compiler errors are icky and there''s not way to properly debug it cos it runs when you compile it. And it''s not very readable when you complex stuff going on.