Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Learning to write a compiler
I looked around trying to find out more about programming language development, but couldn't find a whole lot online. I have found some tutorial videos, but not much for text guides, FAQs, advice etc. I am really curious about how to build my own programming language. It brings me to SO to ask:
How can you go about making your own programming language?
I would like to build a very basic language. I don't plan on having a very good language, nor do I think it will be used by anyone. I simply want to make my own language to learn more about operating systems, programming, and become better at everything.
Where does one start? Building the syntax? Building a compiler? What skills are needed? A lot of assembly and understanding of the operating system? What languages are most compilers and languages built in? I assume C.
I'd say that before you begin you might want to take a look at the Dragon Book and/or Programming Language Pragmatics. That will ground you in the theory of programming languages. The books cover compilation, and interpretation, and will enable you to build all the tools that would be needed to make a basic programming language.
I don't know how much assembly language you know, but unless you're rather comfortable with some dialect of assembly language programming I'd advise you against trying to write a compiler that compiles down to assembly code, as it's quite a bit of a challenge. You mentioned earlier that you're familiar wtih both C and C++, so perhaps you can write a compiler that compiles down to C or C++ and then use gcc/g++ or any other C/C++ compiler to convert the code to a native executable. This is what the Vala programming language does (it converts Vala syntax to C code that uses the GObject library).
As for what you can use to write the compiler, you have a lot of options. You could write it by hand in C or C++, or in order to simplify development you could use a higher level language so that you can focus on the writing of the compiler more than the memory allocations and the such that are needed for working with strings in C.
You could simply generate the grammars and have Flex and Bison generate the parser and lexical analyser. This is really useful as it allows you to do iterative development to quickly work on getting a working compiler.
Another option you have is to use ANTLR to generate your parser, the advantage to this is that you get lots of target languages that ANTLR can compile to. I've never used this but I've heard a lot about it.
Furthermore if you'd like a better grounding on the models that are used so frequently in programming language compiler/scanner/parser construction you should get a book on the Models of Computation. I'd recommend Introduction to the Theory of Computation.
You also seem to show an interest in gaining an understanding of operating systems. This I would say is something that is separate from Programming Language Design, and should be pursued separately. The book Principles of Modern Operating Systems is a pretty good starting place for learning about that. You could start with small projects like creating a shell, or writing a programme that emulates the ls command, and then go into more low level things, depending on how through you are with the system calls in C.
I hope that helps you.
EDIT: I've learnt a lot since I write this answer. I was taking the online course on programming languages that Brown University was offering when I saw this answer featured there. The professor very rightly points out that this answer talks a lot about parsers but is light on just about everything else. I'd really suggest going through the course videos and exercises if you'd like to get a better idea on how to create a programming language.
It entirely depends on what your programming language is going to be like.
Do you definitely want it to be compiled? There are interpreted languages as well... or you could implement compilation at execution time
What do you want the target platform to be? Some options:
Native code (which architectures and operating systems?)
JVM
Regular .NET
.NET using the Dynamic Language Runtime (like IronRuby/IronPython)
Parrot
Personally I would strongly consider targeting the JVM or .NET, just because then you get a lot of "safety" for free, as well as a huge set of libraries your language can use. (Obviously with native code there are plenty of libraries too, but I suspect that getting the interoperability between them right may be trickier.)
I see no reason why you'd particularly want to write a compiler (or other part of the system) in C, especially if it's only for educational purposes (so you don't need a 100-million-lines-a-second compiler). What language are you personally most productive in?
Take a look at ANTLR. It is an awesome compiler-compiler the stuff you use to build a parser for a language.
Building a language is basically about defining a grammar and adding production rules to this grammar. Doing that by hand is not trivial, but a good compiler-compiler will help you a lot.
You might also want to have a look at the classic "Dragon Book" (a book about compilers that features a knight slaying a dragon on the front page). (Google it).
Building domain specific languages is a useful skill to master. Domain specific languages is typically not full featured programming language, but typically business rules formulated in a custom made language tailor made for the project. Have a look at that topic too.
There are various tutorials online such as Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 hrs.
One place to start tho' might be with an "embedded domain specific language" (EDSL). This is a language that actually runs within the environment of another, but you have created keywords, operators, etc particularly suited to the subject (domain) that you want to work in.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I've been writing software in Java for many years now, but it was always for internal applications that would be deployed to a server. I'd like to get into writing desktop applications now but I don't know where to start. I've written a few Java/Swing applications but again they were for internal use.
My understanding is that Java and other semi-compiled and interpreted languages are too easy to reverse engineer, making them unsuitable for commercial software. I am aware that there are compilers for Java and some other interpreted language, but I've also heard that they are pricey and/or unreliable.
Assuming I start a microISV and wish to develop and sell applications to a broad audience, what's my best bet? I would prefer something that can be written close to once, and compiled for different operating systems but I am not opposed to .NET and a Windows-only audience if other languages would compromise the experience (installation ease & user experience) in Windows. My only issue there is that I don't have a large starting budget and paying out the wazoo for the required development tools is not really in the cards.
Why would people want to reverse engineer your software? They might pirate it, but you can't prevent pirating no matter what language you use. I doubt you have a top-secret algorithm that you're trying to hide either, in which case reverse-engineering might be an issue.
You should go with whatever you know best, and Java can work just fine.
If you are intent on switching to another language, I recommend taking a look at Qt. Qt is a free and open-source cross-platform toolkit for C++ that allows you to write applications in that will compile and run on Windows, Mac, and Linux with minimal effort. You CAN write commercial software for free with Qt with its LGPL license.
Edit: GCJ compiles Java to native code, but only supports Java 1.4.
Well, if you're trying to be an Independent Service Vendor -- and not a Software Vendor -- then in a sense it doesn't matter if you use a language like Java which can be decompiled. Because you'd be selling yourself as the best person to integrate and customize the software for your clients. The software is the delivery mechanism for the thing that will actually make you the money: you and your skills. Plenty of companies make a profit by giving away their software for free and contracting their services to set it up for their clients. You can mitigate the Java decompiling issue somewhat by using an obfuscator, but it's kind of fighting the wrong battle.
If you intent to make your money selling software and not service, then Java would be a relatively risky route to take.
It all depends on your business plan.
If you are starting a one-man company, then you are selling your personal expertise. So the language you use must be the one (or maybe two) that you are most familiar with and expert in. I'm surprised you felt it necessary to ask this.
Any code can be decompiled to some degree. I think you can obfuscate Java to a degree that will deter the casual user... but I think the other people hit the nail on the head. Of all the reasons not to use Java, the ease of decompiling should be very very low on your list. If that is all that is stopping you, go for it! Google Java obfuscater and you will find something.
I'm skeptical about the risk of reverse engineering a complex piece of software written in Java, but for purposes of your question I'm willing to stipulate it. I assume the same issues rule out any other language that is implemented only on the JVM.
The most salient aspects of Java are
Static type system
Class-based object system
Automatic memory management
No freestanding functions or modules outside the class/interface system
Generics
This combination could be replicated in a language like C#, but I assume the same objections you have about distributing JVM bytecode also apply to MSIL bytecodes.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a language that has all these features. Here are some nearby languages:
C++ has everything except automatic memory management, plus it allows freestanding functions. However the C++ generic mechanism (templates) is not for the faint of heart, and it doesn't (yet) support modular typechecking. Lots more flexibility than Java but also lots more ways to shoot your foot off. Use with caution.
Modula-3 has all of the above but it's essentially a dead language, plus like C++ there's no modular type checking for the generics.
I'm not familiar enough with Eiffel to be able to make good comparisons, but I think it's worth looking into.
Delphi may also be worth looking into. It seems to have everything above except generics. It's primarily a proprietary Windows environment (formerly known as Object Pascal), but there seems to exist an open-source 'Free Pascal' compiler that supports Delphi.
There are many object-oriented languages with automatic memory management and dynamic typing, among which one might highlight ruby, Python, and Smalltalk. None of these really compiles well and reliably to standalone native machine code, although all push toward some form of experimental compilation. And they are all dynamically typed, which is quite different from what you're used to.
If I were in your position I would probably go ahead an use Java and accept some risk of reverse engineering. Decompilers aren't as wonderful as you might think, and they don't produce wildly maintainable code, either. But if you really want to be able to produce native machine code, I would investigate Delphi and Eiffel. (I myself would use Modula-3, but that's because I once invested substantial effort in learning it. It's a very well designed language for its niche, but the user community is about gone and I think it's a dead letter. Pity.)
I'm interested in creating a visual programming language which can aid non-programmers(like children) to write simple programs, much like Labview or Simulink allows engineers to connect functional blocks together without the knowledge of how they are internally built. Is this called programming by demonstration? What are example applications?
What would be an ideal platform which can allow me to do this(it can be a desktop or a web app)
Check out Google Blockly. Blockly allows a developer to create their own blocks, translations (generators) to virtually any programming language (or even JSON/XML) and includes a graphical interface to allow end users to create their own programs.
Brief summary:
Blockly was influenced by App Inventor, which itself was based off Scratch
App Inventor now uses Blockly (?!)
So does the BBC microbit
Blockly itself runs in a browser (typically) using javascript
Focused on (visual) language developers
language independent blocks and generators
includes a Block Factory - which allows visual programming to create new Blocks (?!) - I didn't find this useful myself...except for understanding
includes generators to map blocks to javascript/python
e.g. These blocks:
Generated this code:
See https://developers.google.com/blockly/about/showcase for more details
Best wishes - Andy
The adventure on which you are about to embark is the design and implementation of a visual programming language. I don't know of any good textbooks in this area, but there are an IEEE conference and refereed journal devoted to this field. Margaret Burnett of Oregon State University, who is a highly regarded authority, has assembled a bibliography on visual programming languages; I suggest you start there.
You might consider writing to Professor Burnett for advice. If you do, I hope you will report the results back here.
There is Scratch written by MIT which is much like what you are looking for.
http://scratch.mit.edu/
A restricted form of programming is dataflow (aka. flow-based) programming, where the application is built from components by connecting their ports. Depending on the platform and purpose, the components are simple (like a path selector) or complex (like an image transformator). There are several dataflow systems (just I've made two), some of them has no visual editor, some of them are just a part of a bigger system, and there're some which don't even mention the approach. (Did you think, that make, MS-Excel and Unix Shell pipes are some kind of this?)
All modern digital synths based on dataflow approach, there's an amazing visual example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h-RhyopUmc
AFAIK, there's no dataflow system for definitly educational purposes. For more information, you should check this site: http://flowbased.org/start
There is a new open source library out there: TUM.CMS.VPLControl. Get it here. This library may serve as a basis for your purposes.
There is Snap written by UC Berkeley. It is another option to understand VPL.
Pay attention on CoSpaces Edu. It is an online platform that enables the creation of virtual worlds and learning experiences whilst providing a more flexible approach to the learning curriculum.
There is visual coding named "CoBlocks".
Learners can animate and code their creations with "CoBlocks" before exploring and sharing them in mobile VR.
Also It is possible to use JavaScript or TypeScript.
If you want to go ahead with this, the platform that I suggest is the one used to implement Scratch (which already does what you want, IMHO), which is Squeak Smalltalk. The Squeak environment was designed with visual programming explicitly in mind. It's free, and Smalltalk syntax can learned in half an hour. Learning the gigantic class library may take just a little longer.
The blocks editor which was most support and development for microbit is microsoft makecode
Scratch is a horrible language to teach programming (i'm biased, but check out Pipes Visual Programming Language)
What you seem to want to do sounds a lot like Functional Block programming (as in functional block programming language IEC 61499 and other VPLs for mechatronics development). There is already a lot of research into VPLs so you might want to make sure that A) what your are trying to do has an audience and B) what you are trying to do can be done easily.
It sounds a bit negative in tone, but a good place to start to test the plausibility of your idea is by reading Davor Babic's short blog post at http://blog.davor.se/blog/2012/09/09/Visual-programming/
As far as what platform to use - you could use pretty much anything, just make sure it has good graphic libraries (You could use Java with Swing - if you like pain - or Python with TKinter) just depends what you are familiar with. Just keep in mind who you want to eventually launch the language to (if its iOS, then look at using Objective-C, etc.)
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm a scientist working mostly with C++, but I would like to find a better language. I'm looking for suggestions, I'm not even sure my "dream language" exist (yet), but here's my wishlist;
IMPORTANT FEATURES (in order of importance)
1.1: Performance: For science, performance is very important. I perfectly understand the importance of productivity, not just execution speed, but when your program has to run for hours, you just can't afford to write it in Python or Ruby. It doesn't need to be as fast as C++, but it has to be reasonably close (e.g.: Fortran, Java, C#, OCaml...).
1.2: High-level and elegant: I would like to be able to concentrate as most as possible on the science and get a clear code. I also dislike verbose languages like Java.
1.3: Primarely functional: I like functional programming, and I think it suits both my style and scientific programming very well. I don't care if the language supports imperative programming, it might be a plus, but it has to focus and encourage functional programming.
1.4: Portability: Should work well on Linux (especially Linux!), Mac and Windows. And no, I do not think F# works well on Linux with mono, and I'm not sure OCaml works well on windows ;)
1.5: Object-oriented, preferably under the "everything is an object" philosophy: I realized how much I liked object-oriented programming when I had to deal pure C not so long ago. I like languages with a strong commitment to object-oriented programming, not just timid support.
NOT REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT THINGS THAT WOULD BE NICE
2.1: "Not-too-strong" typing: I find Haskell's strong typing system to be annoying, I like to be able to do some implicit casting.
2.2: Tools: Good tools is always a plus, but I guess it really depends on the languages. I played with Haskell using Geany, a lightweight editor, and I never felt handicapped. On the other hand I wouldn't have done the same with Java or even Scala (Scala, in particular, seems to be lacking good tools, which is really a shame). Java is really the #1 language here, with NetBeans and Javadoc, programming with Java is easy and fun.
2.3: Garbage collected, but translated or compiled without a virtual machine. I have nothing against virtual machines, but the two giants in the domain have their problems. On paper the .net framework seems much better, and especially suited for functional programming, but in practice it's still very windows-centric and the support for Linux/MacOS is terrible not as good as it should be, so it's not really worth considering. Java is now a mature VM, but it annoys me on some levels: I dislike the ways it deals with executables, generics, and it writes terrible GUIs (although these things aren't so bad).
In my mind there are three viable candidates: Haskell, Standard ML, OCaml. (Scala is out on the grounds that it compiles to JVM codes and is therefore unlikely to be fast enough when programs must run for days.)
All are primarily functional. I will comment where I have knowledge.
Performant
OCaml gives the most stable performance for all situations, but performance is hard to improve. What you get is what you get :-)
Haskell has the best parallel performance and can get excellent use out of an 8-core or 16-core machine. If your future is parallel, I urge you to master your dislike of the type system and learn to use Haskell effectively, including the Data Parallel Haskell extensions.
The down side of Haskell performance is that it can be quite difficult to predict the space and time required to evaluate a lazy functional program. There are excellent profiling tools, but still significant effort may be required.
Standard ML with the MLton compiler gives excellent performance. MLton is a whole-program compiler and does a very good job.
High-level and elegant
Syntactically Haskell is the clear winner. The type system, however, is cluttered with the remains of recent experiments. The core of the type system is, however, high-level and elegant. The "type class" mechanism is particularly powerful.
Standard ML has ugly syntax but a very clean type system and semantics.
OCaml is the least elegant, both from a point of view of syntax and from the type system. The remains of past experiments are more obtrusive than in Haskell. Also, the standard libraries do not support functional programming as well as you might expect.
Primarily functional
Haskell is purely functional; Standard ML is very functional; OCaml is mostly functional (but watch out for mutable strings and for some surprising omissions in the libraries; for example, the list functions are not safe for long lists).
Portability
All three work very well on Linux. The Haskell developers use Windows and it is well supported (though it causes them agony). I know OCaml runs well on OSX because I use an app written in OCaml that has been ported to OSX. But I'm poorly informed here.
Object-oriented
Not to be found in Haskell or SML. OCaml has a bog-standard OO system grafted onto the core language, not well integrated with other languages.
You don't say why you are keen for object-orientation. ML functors and Haskell type classes provide some of the encapsulation and polymorphism (aka "generic programming") that are found in C++.
Type system than can be subverted
All three languages provide unsafe casts. In all three cases they are a good way to get core dumps.
I like to be able to do some implicit casting.
I think you will find Haskell's type-class system to your liking—you can get some effects that are similar to implicit casting, but safely. In particular, numeric and string literals are implicitly castable to any type you like.
Tools
There are pretty good profiling tools with Haskell. Standard ML has crappy tools. OCaml has basically standard Unix profiling plus an unusable debugger. (The debugger refuses to cross abstraction barriers, and it doesn't work on native code.)
My information may be out of date; the tools picture is changing all the time.
Garbage-collected and compiled to native code
Check. Nothing to choose from there.
Recommendation
Overcome your aversion to safe, secure type systems. Study Haskell's type classes (the original paper by Wadler and Blott and a tutorial by Mark Jones may be illuminating). Get deeper into Haskell, and be sure to learn about the huge collection of related software at Hackage.
Try Scala. It's an object-oriented functional language that runs in the JVM, so you can access everything that was ever written in Java. It has all your important features, and one of the nice to have features. (Obviously not #2.2 :) but that will probably get better quickly.) It does have very strong typing, but with type inference it doesn't really get in your way.
You just described Common Lisp...
If you like using lists for most things, and care about performance, use Haskell or Ocaml. Although Ocaml suffers significantly in that Floats on the heap need to be boxed due to the VM design (but arrays of floats and purely-float records aren't individually boxed, which is good).
If you're willing to use arrays more than lists, or plan on programming using mutable state, use Scala rather than Haskell. If you're looking to write threaded multi-core code, use Scala or Haskell (Ocaml requires you to fork).
Scala's list is polymorphic, so a list of ints is really a list of boxed Int objects. Of course you could write your own list of ints in Scala that would be as fast, but I assume you'd rather use the standard libraries. Scala does have as much tail recursion as is possible on JVM.
Ocaml fails on Vista 64 for me, I think because they just changed the linker in the latest version (3.11.1?), but earlier versions worked fine.
Scala tool support is buggy at the moment if you're using nightly builds, but should be good soon. There are eclipse and netbeans plugins. I'm using emacs instead. I've used both the eclipse and netbeans debugger GUI successfully in the past.
None of Scala, Ocaml, or Haskell, have truly great standard libraries, but at least you can easily use Java libs in Scala. If you use mapreduce, Scala wins on integration. Haskell and Ocaml have a reasonable amount of 3rd party libs. It annoys me that there are differently named combinators for 2-3 types of monad in Haskell.
http://metamatix.org/~ocaml/price-of-abstraction.html might convince you to stay with C++. It's possible to write Scala that's almost identical in performance to Java/C++, but not necessarily in a high level functional or OO style.
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html seems to suggest that auto x = ... (type inference for expressions) and lambdas are usable. C++0x with boost, if you can stomach it, seems pretty functional. The downside to C++ high performance template abusing libraries is, of course, compile time.
Your requirements seem to me to describe ocaml quite well, except for the "not-too-strong" typing. As for tools, I use and like tuareg mode for emacs. Ocaml should run on windows (I haven't used it myself though), and is pretty similar to F#, FWIW.
I'd consider the ecosystem around the language as well. In my opinion Ocaml's major drawback is that it doesn't have a huge community, and consequently lacks the large library of third-party modules that are part of what makes python so convenient. Having to write your own code or modify someone else's one-shot prototype module you found on the internet can eat up some of the time you save by writing in a nice functional language.
You can use F# on mono; perhaps worth a look? I know that mono isn't 100% perfect (nothing ever is), but it is very far from "terrible"; most of the gaps are in things like WCF/WPF, which I doubt you'd want to use from FP. This would seem to offer much of what you want (except obviously it runs in a VM - but you gain a huge set of available libraries in the bargain (i.e. most of .NET) - much more easily than OCaml which it is based on).
I would still go for Python but using NumPy or some other external module for the number crunching or alternatively do the logic in Python and the hotspots in C / assembler.
You are always giving up cycles for comfort, the more comfort the more cycles. Thus you requirements are mutual exclusive.
I think that Common Lisp fits your description quite well.
1.1: Performance: Modern CL implementations are almost on par with C. There are also foreign function interfaces to interact with C libraries, and many bindings are already done (e.g. the GNU Scientific Library).
1.2: High-level and elegant: Yep.
1.3: Primarily functional: Yes, but you can also "get imperative" wherever the need arises; CL is "multi-paradigm".
1.4: Portability: There are several implementations with differing support for each platform. Some links are at CLiki and ALU Wiki.
1.5: Object-oriented, preferably under the "everything is an object" philosophy: CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System, is much closer to being "object oriented" than any of the "curly" languages, and also has features you will sorely miss elsewhere, like multimethods.
2.1: "Not-too-strong" typing: CL has dynamic, strong typing, which seems to be what you want.
2.2: Tools: Emacs + SLIME (the Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs) is a very nice free IDE. There is also a plugin for Eclipse (Cusp), and the commercial CL implementations also oftem bring an own IDE.
2.3: Garbage collected, but translated or compiled without a virtual machine. The Lisp image that you will be working on is a kind of VM, but I think that's not what you mean.
A further advantage is the incremental development: you have a REPL (read-eval-print-loop) running that provides a live interface into the running image. You can compile and recompile individual functions on the fly, and inspect the current program state on the live system. You have no forced interruptions due to compiling.
Short Version: The D Programming Language
Yum Yum Yum, that is a big set of requirements.
As you probably know, object orientation, high-level semantics, performance, portability and all the rest of your requirements don't tend to fit together from a technical point of view. Let's split this into a different view:
Syntax Requirements
Object Orientated presentation
Low memory management complexity
Allows function style
Isn't Haskell (damn)
Backend Requirements
Fast for science
Garbage Collected
On this basis I would recommend The D programming language it is a successor to C trying to be all things to all people.
This article on D is about it's functional programming aspects. It is object-orientated, garbage collected and compiles to machine code so is fast!
Good Luck
Clojure and/or Scala are good canditates for JVM
I'm going to assume that you are familiar enough with the languages you mentioned to have ruled them out as possibilities. Given that, I don't think there is a language that fulfills all your expectations. However, there are still a few languages you could take a look at:
Clojure This really is a very nice language. It's syntax is based on LISP, and it runs on the JVM.
D This is like C++ done right. It has all the features you want except that it's kind of weak on the functional programming.
Clean This is based very heavily on Haskell, but removes some of Haskell's problems. Downsides are that it's not very mature and doesn't have a lot of libraries.
Factor Syntactically it's based on Forth, but has support for LISP-like functional programming as well as better support for classes.
Take a peek at Erlang. Originally, Erlang was intended for building fault-tolerant, highly parallel systems. It is a functional language, embracing immutability and first-class functions. It has an official Windows binary release, and the source can be compiled for many *NIX platforms (there is a MacPorts build, for example).
In terms of high-level features, Erlang support list comprehensions, pattern matching, guard clauses, structured data, and other things you would expect. It's relatively slow in sequential computation, but pretty amazing if you're doing parallel computation. Erlang does run on a VM, but it runs on its own VM, which is part of the distribution.
Erlang, while not strictly object-oriented, does benefit from an OO mindset. Erlang uses a thing called a process as its unit of concurrency. An Erlang process is actually a lot like a native thread, except with much less overhead. Each process has a mailbox, will be sent messages, and will process those messages. It's easy enough to treat processes as if they were objects.
I don't know if it has much in the way of scientific libraries. It might not be a good fit for your needs, but it's a cool language that few people seem to know about.
Are you sure that you really need a functional language? I did most of my programming in lisp, which is obviously a functional language, but I have found that functional programming is more of a mind-set than a language feature. I'm using VB right now, which I think is an excellent language (speed, support, IDE) and I basically use the same programming style that I did in lisp - functions call other functions that call other functions - and functions are usually 1-5 lines long.
I do know that Lisp has good performance, run on all platforms, but it is somewhat outdated in terms of how up to date support for features such as graphics, multi-threading etc. are.
i've taken a look at clojure but if you don't like java you probably won't like clojure. It's a functional-lisp-style language implemented on top of java - but you'll probably find yourself using java libraries all the time which adds the verbosoity of java. I like lisp but I didn't like clojure despite the hype.
Are you also sure about your performanc requirements? Matlab is an excellent language for a lot of scientific computation, but it is kind of slow and I hate reading it. You might find t useful though especially in conjunction with other languages, for prototypes/scenarios/subunits.
Many of your requirements are based on hearsay. One example: the idea that Mono is "terrible".
http://banshee-project.org/
That's the official media player of many Linux distributions. It's written in C#. (They don't even have a public Windows release of it!)
Your assertions about the relative performance of various languages are equally dubious. And requiring a language to not use a virtual machine is quite unrealistic and totally undesirable. Even an OS is a form of VM on which applications run, which virtualises the hardware devices of the machine.
Though you earn points for mentioning tools (although not with enough priority). As Knuth observed, the first question to ask about a language is "What's the debugger like?"
Looking over your requirements, I would recommend VB on either Mono, or a virtual machine running windows. As a previous poster said, the first thing to ask about a language is "What is the debugger like" and VB/C# have the best debugger. Just a result of all those Microsoft employees hammering on the debugger, and having the teams nearby to bug (no pun intended) into fixing it.
The best thing about VB and C# is the large set of developer tools, community, google help, code exapmles, libraries, softwaer that interfaces with it, etc. I've used a wide variety of software development environments over the past 27 years, and the only thing that comes close is the Xerox Lisp machine environmnets (better) and the Symbolics Lisp machines (worse).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I already have a few languages under my belt (in a rough order of expertise): Python, C, C++, PHP, Javascript, Haskell, Java, MIPS, x86 assembler. But it's been almost 2 years since I learned a new one, and I'm starting to get the itch. I have a few criteria:
Must (repeat: must) have a free Linux implementation
Should be different from the languages I already know. In other words, it should have features that get me thinking about solving problems in a new way.
Should have some potential for practical use. It doesn't need to be the next Java, but this rules out Brainf* and Shakespeare :) I don't really care how many job postings does it have, but real-world apps and libraries are a plus.
Should have at least just enough free learning materials to get me started in it.
I was thinking Lisp (CL? something else?) or OCaml. I already have some experience with functional languages with Haskell (yes I know that Lisp/OCaml are multi-paradigm). I'm not an expert - e.g. parts of code from Real World Haskell can still contort my brain, but I understand the basic concepts and some advanced ones (functors, monads).
Which one to choose? Any other languages that I have overlooked? Also, could you please include some useful links to good books/tutorials etc.
Neither Lisp nor OCaml is super far afield from what you already know. Here are four suggestions chosen partly for intrinsic interest and partly to stretch your horizons.
A logic programming language, probably Prolog. I haven't found good materials online, but the book The Art of Prolog by Sterling and Shapiro is excellent. The more basic textbook by Clocksin and Mellish is also good. The main point of interest is programming with relations, not functions.
A pure object-oriented language, either
Smalltalk or Self. If you've only used hybrid object-oriented languages you'll be amazed how beautiful pure object-orientation can be. I've linked to the Squeak implementation of Smalltalk. I personally would recommend learning Smalltalk before tackling Self; there's a very large and active community and the software is well developed. Self stands on Smalltalk's shoulders and is an even more inspiring design, but the community is much smaller. For those who have access to the ACM Digital library I recommend the excellent talk by Dave Ungar at HOPL-III; the paper is also pretty good.
The Icon programming language has two great things going for it; a powerful and unusual evaluation model with implicit backtracking, and a user-extensible model of string processing that beats regular expressions all hollow. I'm sorry to say that Icon has never quite kept pace with the times, and of all my recommendations it is the least practical. In fact I fear the language is moribund. But it will stretch your mind almost as much as Haskell, and in wildly different directions. Icon is still very useful for string-processing tasks of modest size.
You can read about Icon string processing in an article by Ralph Griswold from Computer Journal.
The Lua programming language is my last and least radical suggestion. Its interest is not so much in novel language features or paradigms but in the superb engineering of the language and its implementation. Lua occupies a number of niches, including scripting, gaming, string processing, and lightweight functional programming. But its main point of interest is its seamless integration with C, and to get the full benefit, you should bind a C library into Lua.
The HOPL-III web site also contains an excellent talk and paper about Lua.
Both Common Lisp and Ocaml are certainly useful to learn. If you already know Haskell, CL might be the more different experience.
SBCL and Clozure CL are both very useful implementations of Common Lisp on Linux. (Overview about various implementations: Common Lisp survey.)
As a starting point I would recommend to use Peter Seibel's excellent book Practical Common Lisp, that is both available online and printed.
Community pointers are here: CLIKI.
Prolog may be what you are looking for.
Edit
The first commenter is right, my answer was pretty short and not very useful, so:
My preferred implementation is SWI-Prolog. I personally learned from Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence. It's style is pretty clear and it contains many examples, but I don't own any other book on logic programming (it's a shame, really :) so I have no basis for comparison.
Erlang is pretty interesting to learn because of its super efficient concurrency model, and the ease with which you can write distributed systems (for an example of this, CouchDB was written in Erlang). It's a dynamically typed functional language, but you can also write code in a procedural fashion. The tutorial I learned it with is called "Getting Started with Erlang", which covers just about every part of the language.
If you want to make use of your Java and functional programming knowledge, and you want to learn a Lisp, then try Clojure.
The implementation is free and cross-platform including Linux, because it runs on the JVM. Being a Lisp, it's different enough (in useful and wonderful ways) from most other languages to make things interesting. Some features such as immutable data structures, multimethods, metadata support, focus on safe concurrency, etc. are fairly novel compared to the languages you listed. Clojure is geared heavily toward being a practical and useful language rather than an academic one. It's a functional language but not "pure", which is arguably a good thing. You can also trivially make use of any Java library from within Clojure.
Clojure is a new language, so the only book out so far is Programming Clojure, but it's a pretty good one. There's also a wiki which may not be entirely up-to-date, because the language is still evolving very quickly. The mailing list and IRC channel are very friendly, welcoming places to ask questions. The official website is also a good resource, of course.
I'm going to recommend something that I haven't yet tried, but plan to, so you have to judge for yourself this one. There's this language, called IO, which is particular in that its prototype-based, like JavaScript, but also borrows concepts from many other languages. Its job market it's probably nonexistent, but I thought I mention this language.
Otherwise, a language from the Lisp family may be pretty different from what you already know. In that regard I'd recommend Scheme, which is, in my opinion, more elegant than Common Lisp. The new concept that you might found interesting in Scheme is continuations.
If you take the Scheme path, make some time to watch these videos from 1986. They're amazing.
Have a look at Smalltalk ! Either Cincom VWST or Smalltalk/X - dont bother with Squeak as the interface is terrible). VAST is good also but really only Windows centric. And dont bother about the sceptics that pore scorn on Smalltalk -- they arent using it and are stuck in the morass of edit-run-debug cycle languages and multiple dispirt linked libraries. :-)
Why these Smalltalks - well, they come complete wth excellent IDE, GUI tools builtin, best debugger you will ever see, online help, and is totally independent of the underlying OS. Eg a ST/X programming running under Linux can be transfered ( source code) to Windows ST/X and it should execute.
ST/X is free with only a very minor licience restrictions, Cincom offer a free NC ( Not Commercial ) version that is NOT restricted. I use ST/X as I prefer the default look & feel
it offers. Their IDE interfaces are very similar.
Languages without a IDE & GUI tools are just wasting your time as the world is really GUI, no matter how terrific the underlying language is. Eg Ruby is great, but with no IDE or easy GUI tools its really frustrating.
Smalltalk is not easy to get into, and its not perfect,(what language is?) but very satisfying to learn & use. And now that the hardware and operating systems have finally caught up with Smalltalks needs . very efficient.
I second Rainer's Common Lisp recommendation.
CL has all the things you're looking for and will provide a genuinely novel experience that will also make your coding efforts and approaches in other languages better.
But bring patience and persistence, you will have to grasp a lot of concepts that will seem alien at first.
You could try Tcl. It was sufficiently different to provoke an adverse reaction in my brain, so I can't really tell you how I found it different, but there's been a lot of good stuff written in it (maybe less nowadays than earlier).
C# has a free implementation in Linux under the Mono project, and it arguably is a very marketable skill unless you're completely anti-Microsoft.
My favorite C# book is Pro C# 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform, Fourth Edition.
If you're really want exotic, F# is an OCaml style language that runs on the .NET platform and mono, and is getting a lot of attention these days.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/fsharp/default.aspx
Books for F#:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=f%23
Of the suggestions I've seen so far, I like Lisp (see Secko) and Smalltalk (see brett), as both will give you another view of languages. Prolog even more so.
Another language that is different is Erlang -- I haven't had a chance to learn it yet, but it handles concurrency in a different way. The best link I can give you is the main website.
In terms of recommendations, Lisp is good both because it is currently used and because it is very old. The others you will have to look at sources and see which one appeals the most.
Try FORTRAN, then? I hear it's still actively used by the scientific and mathemematical communities, plus it should be dissimilar enough to be a learning challenge.
Compilers:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries
http://www.g95.org/
http://www.fortran.com/compilers.html
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/fortran.shtml
IDEs:
http://www.eclipse.org/photran/
http://force.lepsch.com/ (FORTRAN 77 only)
Tutorials:
Introduction to Modern FORTRAN: http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Fortran/
FORTRAN 90 Tutorial: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/COURSES/cs201/NOTES/fortran.html
You could also learn Visual Basic.NET, in case you ever get forced to maintain that. Evidently mono has a working Linux implementation of it:
http://www.mono-project.com/Visual_Basic
Factor is pretty radically different from everything you said you know, and also everything else listed. It's stack-based, like Forth, but has a fairly comprehensive library and a lot of interesting features.
Ada is very practical -- there's a compiler based on gcc -- but also quite different from the other imperative languages you know. I find the type system a bit stifling, but it was worth learning something about.
Lisp is a great HLL, it has everything that other languages lack. In my opinion, this is a very good language that can "satisfy" any programmers needs.
Perl is also a HLL like Lisp, it's interesting and fun at the same time. It derives from C so you can pick it up as you go. It can be hard sometimes and some people tend to get lost while learning, but it's worth knowing.
Both languages are free of use and come with Linux.
Links
Lisp:
If Lisp is so great,
An Introduction and Tutorial for Common Lisp
Perl:
PERL -- Practical Extraction and Report Language
Books
On Lisp - Great book by Paul Graham on the Lisp language. It's free and you can download it here.
Scala has been very good for making me see programming in a new light. I haven't used it for anything worklike yet, but it's still affected how I write code in other languages - not just Java, but PHP. I recently wrote a simple parser for a WordPress plugin, and the code is vastly more functional and immutable than it would have been six months ago, and better for it, despite the lack of enforcement in PHP.
The only other language to have affected the way I work so dramatically is Perl, nearly a decade earlier. Perl has contributed a lot to the way I pseudo-code, even if I never touch the language itself.
Many people compare the functional aspects of Scala to Haskell. You may even imagine that knowing Haskell means you already know all Scala could teach you, but I don't believe that. The way Scala combines OO and function has a way of making it seem like that's actually the truest form of both of them.
Like you, I have over a dozen languages under my belt. While shopping for something to play with for writing a cross-compiler, I ran across ML and family. Many very good ideas there, and they have taught me to write code is a much different way; for example, my JavaScript now has a decidedly functional bent.
After toying with OCaml under Windows a while (and getting frustrated with stability issues), I ran across F#, an offspring of OCaml. The two are quite similar (can cross-compile a lot of code), but OCaml apparently has a really good macro system (P4) and type-classes (in support of writing "strongly typed" operators against generic types), while F# has excellent support for asynchronous and parallel operations, monads, units-of-measure for numeric types, as well as cleaner OO syntax and awesome IDE integration (VS2008 & will be released in-the-box with VS2010). I much prefer F# these days, since I have access to the whole .NET runtime and loads of 3rd party libraries. In fact, I write most of my one-off and utility code in F# now; for me, its generally much more productive than C++, JavaScript, C#, PowerShell, or anything else.
F# works fairly well under Mono on Linux, and has a good following there. The compiler and runtime will be open sourced once stable (released with VS2010), and the developers consider Mono support enough of a priority for it to be seriously considered for non-Microsoft use.