Is there an exact/correct term to describe this difference between the syntax/constructs of programming langauges e.g VB6 with its (if ... else ... endif) and C# with its curly braces for conditional statements.
I'm using VB6 syntax and C# as examples since I'm more familiar with their syntax.
For example, Visual Basic 6's syntax uses a more verbose, natural language like structure.
If (id = 0) Then
id = MyObject.Add(Me)
Else
Call MyObject.Update(Me)
End If
while C# has more concise syntax like:
if (id == 0)
{
id = MyObject.Add(this);
}
else
{
MyObject.Update(this);
}
Conciseness? Natural languageness? Or is there a more "scientific" word for describing syntax?
You may be looking for the word "terse", as in the opposite of verbose.
Syntax seems to be described in terms of what it most resembles, C#'s syntax is based off of C syntax, Lisp is based off of parentheses, Basic is influenced by Fortran etc. I found this table pretty interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28syntax%29#Blocks
Related
I'm currently trying to learn Nim (it's going slowly - can't devote much time to it). On the other hand, in the interests of getting some working code, I'd like to prototype out sections of a Nim app I'm working on in ruby.
Since mruby allows embedding a ruby subset in a C app, and since nim allows compiling arbitrary C code into functions, it feels like this should be relatively straightforward. Has anybody done this?
I'm particularly looking for ways of using Nim's funky macro features to break out into inline ruby code. I'm going to try myself, but I figure someone is bound to have tried it and /or come up with more elegant solutions than I can in my current state of learning :)
https://github.com/micklat/NimBorg
This is a project with a somewhat similar goal. It targets python and lua at the moment, but using the same techniques to interface with Ruby shouldn't be too hard.
There are several features in Nim that help in interfacing with a foreign language in a fluent way:
1) Calling Ruby from Nim using Nim's dot operators
These are a bit like method_missing in Ruby.
You can define a type like RubyValue in Nim, which will have dot operators that will translate any expression like foo.bar or foo.bar(baz) to the appropriate Ruby method call. The arguments can be passed to a generic function like toRubyValue that can be overloaded for various Nim and C types to automatically convert them to the right Ruby type.
2) Calling Nim from Ruby
In most scripting languages, there is a way to register a foreign type, often described in a particular data structure that has to be populated once per exported type. You can use a bit of generic programming and Nim's .global. vars to automatically create and cache the required data structure for each type that was passed to Ruby through the dot operators. There will be a generic proc like getRubyTypeDesc(T: typedesc) that may rely on typeinfo, typetraits or some overloaded procs supplied by user, defining what has to be exported for the type.
Now, if you really want to rely on mruby (because you have experience with it for example), you can look into using the .emit. pragma to directly output pieces of mruby code. You can then ask the Nim compiler to generate only source code, which you will compile in a second step or you can just change the compiler executable, which Nim will call when compiling the project (this is explained in the same section linked above).
Here's what I've discovered so far.
Fetching the return value from an mruby execution is not as easy as I thought. That said, after much trial and error, this is the simplest way I've found to get some mruby code to execute:
const mrb_cc_flags = "-v -I/mruby_1.2.0_path/include/ -L/mruby_1.2.0_path/build/host/lib/"
const mrb_linker_flags = "-v"
const mrb_obj = "/mruby_1.2.0_path/build/host/lib/libmruby.a"
{. passC: mrb_cc_flags, passL: mrb_linker_flags, link: mrb_obj .}
{.emit: """
#include <mruby.h>
#include <mruby/string.h>
""".}
proc ruby_raw(str:cstring):cstring =
{.emit: """
mrb_state *mrb = mrb_open();
if (!mrb) { printf("ERROR: couldn't init mruby\n"); exit(0); }
mrb_load_string(mrb, `str`);
`result` = mrb_str_to_cstr(mrb, mrb_funcall(mrb, mrb_top_self(mrb), "test_func", 0));
mrb_close(mrb);
""".}
proc ruby*(str:string):string =
echo ruby_raw("def test_func\n" & str & "\nend")
"done"
let resp = ruby """
puts 'this was a puts from within ruby'
"this is the response"
"""
echo(resp)
I'm pretty sure that you should be able to omit some of the compiler flags at the start of the file in a well configured environment, e.g. by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH correctly (not least because that would make the code more portable)
Some of the issues I've encountered so far:
I'm forced to use mrb_funcall because, for some reason, clang seems to think that the mrb_load_string function returns an int, despite all the c code I can find and the documentation and several people online saying otherwise:
error: initializing 'mrb_value' (aka 'struct mrb_value') with an expression of incompatible type 'int'
mrb_value mrb_out = mrb_load_string(mrb, str);
^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The mruby/string.h header is needed for mrb_str_to_cstr, otherwise you get a segfault. RSTRING_PTR seems to work fine also (which at least gives a sensible error without string.h), but if you write it as a one-liner as above, it will execute the function twice.
I'm going to keep going, write some slightly more idiomatic nim, but this has done what I needed for now.
Why nested comments use by some programming languages such as MATLAB ,I just want to know usage of this kind comments in a program and what are the advantages we can gain by using this nested comments ?
The answer is nested comments allows commented-out code that contains comments itself
example in C++ has block comments delimited by /../ that can span multiple lines and line comments delimited by //.
Usually, coding standards for a particular project or program have rules about which comment style to use when; a common convention is to use block comments (/* */) for method and class documentation, and inline comments (//) for remarks inside method bodies and such, e.g.:
/**
* Helper class to store Foo objects inside a bar.
*/
public class Foobar {
/**
* Stores a Foo in this Foobar's bar, unless the bar already contains
* an equivalent Foo.
* Returns the number of Foos added (always 0 or 1).
*/
public int storeFoo(Foo foo) {
// Don't add a foo we already have!
if (this.bar.contains(foo)) {
return 0;
}
// OK, we don't have this foo yet, so we'll add it.
this.bar.append(foo);
return 1;
}
}
If someone wants to temporarily disable entire methods or classes in the above program.It's very helpful, if that language allows nested comments.
You can use comments...:
to temporally disable some lines of code.
as titles for sections.
to comment each line.
to add some notations or comments on other comments.
to send macro orders.
And you can mix all of them. That's why we need different ways to mark comments and create nested comments.
Good old Turbo Pascal aka Borland Pascal allows multi-line comments either with curly braces { } or with parenthesis star (* *), which nest independently of one another even though multi-line comments in the same style do not nest.
A good workaround from my old work place was use of typical brace { } comments for all informational comments and specialized use of the less common parenthesis star (* *) only to comment out code. Marking the middle lines of commented out code with something like ** is still a decent idea, and macros can be used to achieve this in programmer editors
function ComputeCost(var x : longint);
{ Wide version: Apply discounts to raw price.}
(* CODE GRAVEYARD!
** function ComputeCost(var x : integer);
** {Apply discounts to raw price.}
*)
Minimalists will always discount the need for nested comments by saying that C style languages allow constructs like #ifdef SOMETHING or the elegantly short #if 0 to disable code. True minimalists want old code removed completely and say version control takes the place of keeping old code. A good counter is that commented out code together with programmer editors with folding support, e.g. Vim, allows visually stepping over dead code while keeping it for reference.
I feel that nested comments are not necessary! In general a comment is omitted by the compiler so comments serve a main purpose for indicating the programmer what he had done or a new programmer to know the flow of the program..why unnecessarily nest comments..just an indication that can be without nesting.. eg:
for(;;)
{
if()
{
}
}/* a loop with an if condition*/
**need not be as**
/*a loop/*if condition*/for n times*/
Consider the following sample codes:
1.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)
? 'yes'
: 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
2.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)?'yes': 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
The 2nd sample I am very comfortable with & I code in that style, but it was told that its wrong way of doing without any supportive reasons.
Why is it recommended not to use a single line ternary operator in Node.js?
Can anyone put some light on the reason why it is so?
Advance Thanks for great help.
With all coding standards, they are generally for readability and maintainability. My guess is the author finds it more readable on separate lines. The compiler / interpreter for your language will handle it all the same. As long as you / your project have a set standard and stick to it, you'll be fine. I recommend that the standards be worked on or at least reviewed by everyone on the project before casting them in stone. I think that if you're breaking it up on separate lines like that, you may as well define an if/else conditional block and use that.
Be wary of coding standards rules that do not have a justification.
Personally, I do not like the ternary operator as it feels unnatural to me and I always have to read the line a few times to understand what it's doing. I find separate if/else blocks easier for me to read. Personal preference of course.
It is in fact wrong to put the ? on a new line; even though it doesn’t hurt in practice.
The reason is a JS feature called “Automatic Semicolon Insertion”. When a var statement ends with a newline (without a trailing comma, which would indicate that more declarations are to follow), your JS interpreter should automatically insert a semicolon.
This semicolon would have the effect that IsAdminUser is assigned a boolean value (namely the result of User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges). After that, a new (invalid) expression would start with the question mark of what you think is a ternary operator.
As mentioned, most JS interpreters are smart enough to recognize that you have a newline where you shouldn’t have one, and implicitely fix your ternary operator. And, when minifying your script, the newline is removed anyway.
So, no problem in practice, but you’re relying on an implicit fix of common JS engines. It’s better to write the ternary operator like this:
var foo = bar ? "yes" : "no";
Or, for larger expressions:
var foo = bar ?
"The operation was successful" : "The operation has failed.";
Or even:
var foo = bar ?
"Congratulations, the operation was a total success!" :
"Oh, no! The operation has horribly failed!";
I completely disagree with the person who made this recommendation. The ternary operator is a standard feature of all 'C' style languages (C,C++,Java,C#,Javascript etc.), and most developers who code in these languages are completely comfortable with the single line version.
The first version just looks weird to me. If I was maintaining code and saw this, I would correct it back to a single line.
If you want verbose, use if-else. If you want neat and compact use a ternary.
My guess is the person who made this recommendation simply wasn't very familiar with the operator, so found it confusing.
Because it's easier on the eye and easier to read. It's much easier to see what your first snippet is doing at a glance - I don't even have to read to the end of a line. I can simply look at one spot and immediately know what values IsAdminUser will have for what conditions. Much the same reason as why you wouldn't write an entire if/else block on one line.
Remember that these are style conventions and are not necessarily backed up by objective (or technical) reasoning.
The reason for having ? and : on separate lines is so that it's easier to figure out what changed if your source control has a line-by-line comparison.
If you've just changed the stuff between the ? and : and everything is on a single line, the entire line can be marked as changed (based on your comparison tool).
Say I have some Coffeescript (with Underscore.js mixed in) like this:
someData =
hello: 'haha'
_(3).times (index) ->
someData["key-#{index}"] = index
The value of someData will then be:
hello: 'haha'
key-0: 0
key-1: 1
key-2: 2
It would be nice if Coffeescript had some syntactic sugar that allows me to write something like this:
someData =
hello: 'haha'
<%
_(3).times (index) ->
%>
key-#{index}: index
which would produce someData whose value would be identical to the original.
Is there such facility in Coffeescript?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: This kind of syntax would go beyond CoffeeScript's intent of being a simple language that's ~1:1 with JavaScript. However, you could use another templating language on top of CoffeeScript. In fact, with Rails 3.1, it's pretty straightforward to have a .coffee.erb file where Ruby code can be used to generate CoffeeScript code, much like your hypothetical example.
To complement Trevor's answer: code generation (a'la Lisp) is indeed powerful, but you can also build structures with some basic abstractions. For your example (it uses a couple of functions from this underscore mixin):
data = _(
hello: 'haha'
).merge(_([0..2]).mash (x) -> ["key-" + x, x])
Short answer: Yes, sort of.
Slightly less short answer:
You can do what the OP is after in fine style, since coffeescript is written in coffeescript (which is written in coffeescript ;). Sth like ERB templates are probably a better choice if your use-case is very simple, but there's nothing like programmatically manipulating AST structures for really powerful & reusable code-generation.
In this regard, Coffeescript shows something almost kinda-sorta halfway like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity (the joy of lisps) but not really.
Here's an example:
http://blog.davidpadbury.com/2010/12/09/making-macros-in-coffeescript/
nostalgic musing follows
"javascript" was inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_(programming_language) ... before it was called javascript ... and so coffeescript is kinda bringing JS back to its roots, eliding the marketing jibberish in its syntax, which was shoehorned in because of ill-conceived micromanagement on the part of Sun & Netscape executives.
A long time ago, I thought I saw a proposal to add an else clause to for or while loops in C or C++... or something like that. I don't remember how it was supposed to work -- did the else clause run if the loop exited normally but not via a break statement?
Anyway, this is tough to search for, so I thought maybe I could get some CW answers here for various languages.
What languages support adding an else clause to something other than an if statement? What is the meaning of that clause? One language per answer please.
Python.
Example use:
for element in container:
if element == target:
break
else:
# this will not be executed if the loop is quit with break.
raise ElementNotFoundError()
From the Python docs:
it is executed when the loop
terminates through exhaustion of the
list (with for) or when the condition
becomes false (with while), but not
when the loop is terminated by a break
statement.
There is so-called "Dijkstra's Loop" (also called "Dijkstra's Guarded Loop"). It was defined in The Guarded Command Language (GCL). You can find some information about it syntax and semantic in the above Wikipedia article at the section 6 Repetition: do.
Nowadays I actually know one programming language which supports this control struture directly. It is Oberon-07 (PDF, 70 KB). And it supports "Dijkstra's Loop" in thу form of while statement. Take a look at section 9.6. While statements in the above PDF.
WHILE m > n DO m := m – n
ELSIF n > m DO n := n – m
END
Interestingly, neither the Python or the Oberon construct are the one I've been searching for. In C, I frequently find myself often wanting an 'otherwise' or 'elsewhile' construct that is executed only if the loop was never taken. Perhaps this is the construction you are looking for as well?
So instead of:
if (condition) {
do {
condition = update(something);
} while (condition);
} else {
loop_never_taken(something);
}
I could write:
while (condition) {
condition = update(something);
} otherwhile {
loop_never_taken(something);
}
It's definitely shorter, and I would find it much clearer to read. It even translates easily into (pseudo) assembly:
while: test condition
bz elsewhile
loop: push something
call update
test: test condition
bnz loop
jmp done
elsewhile: push something
call loop_never_taken
done: ...
I feel like it's a basic enough structure that it deserves a little more sugar. But apparently there haven't been any successful language designers who rely on this structure as much as I do. I wonder how much I should read into that!