Related
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.
Like most ppl, I started with and still do a lot of imperative code(mostly Java, Ruby, Javascript).
I've never been a big fan of OO, either because I never understood it properly or because I don't think OO.
Got my first glimpse of FP via javascript, passing functions around, closures, etc. Have been in love with FP since then.
Recently, I've developed interest in Clojure (and may be Scala) and someday might even have a go at Haskell. I like what I see in the functional approach, but how do I think functional? I've been doing imperative stuff for the past 3-4 yrs and my brain tends to think imperative while approaching a problem.
How can I unlearn the imperative style(do I need to?) and think more functionally ?
No. Don't unlearn imperative style as you'll still need it. Even many well-done FP libraries look somewhat imperative under the covers. It's better to think in terms of adding FP to your list of tools and techniques rather going full-metal with one technique or the other.
Now, as to how you go about learning the FP style? Toy projects - or utility project you write for your own use. Or hell, write yourself yet another blog - but with a twist! The key thing, as was stated above, is practice. When doing so, avoid shared state. Strive for purity (that is, avoid side effects) in as many places as you can. Use closures, pattern matching (if the language supports it) and lambda functions. Think in terms of functions being first-class data types in your program - take them as input and return them as output. The list goes on, but you'll see the same concepts repeated time and again if you're watching for them.
If you feel you need a gentle nudge in this regard, use a tool (language) that encourages the FP style such as F# or Scala.
If you feel you need more of a "tough love" kind of help, reach for Haskell :)
Otherwise use the tool of your choice and just keep FP concepts (above) in mind. If you decide go this route there's a pretty good book called Real-World Functional Programming that uses F# and C# to illustrate techniques that apply in both a "mostly" FP language (F#) and a "mostly" OO language C#.
Go for Haskell. Because it's pure you are forced to think functional. In F# or Scala you still can write very imperative code. I strongly recommend the book by Graham Hutton on Haskell.
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 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
As my first programming language, I decided to learn Haskell. I'm an analytic philosophy major, and Haskell allowed me to quickly and correctly create programs of interest, for instance, transducers for natural language parsing, theorem provers, and interpreters. Although I've only been programming for two and a half months, I found Haskell's semantics and syntax much easier to learn than more traditional imperative languages, and feel comfortable (now) with the majority of its constructs.
Programming in Haskell is like sorcery, however, and I would like to broaden my knowledge of programming. I would like to choose a new programming language to learn, but I do not have enough time to pick up an arbitrary language, drop it, and repeat. So I thought I would pose the question here, along with several stipulations about the type of language I am looking for. Some are subjective, some are intended to ease the transition from Haskell.
Strong type system. One of my favorite parts of programming in Haskell is writing type declarations. This helps structure my thoughts about individual functions and their relationship to the program as a whole. It also makes informally reasoning about the correctness of my program easier. I'm concerned with correctness, not efficiency.
Emphasis on recursion rather than iteration. I use iterative constructs in Haskell, but implement them recursively. However, it is much easier to understand the structure of a recursive function than a complicated iterative procedure, especially when using combinators and higher-order functions like maps, folds and bind.
Rewarding to learn. Haskell is a rewarding language to work in. It's a little like reading Kant. My experience several years ago with C, however, was not. I'm not looking for C. The language should enforce a conceptually interesting paradigm, which in my entirely subjective opinion, the C-likes do not.
Weighing the answers: These are just notes, of course. I'd just like to reply to everyone who gave well-formed responses. You have been very helpful.
1) Several responses indicated that a strong, statically typed language emphasizing recursion means another functional language. While I want to continue working strongly with Haskell, camccann and larsmans correctly pointed out that another such language would "ease the transition too much." These comments have been very helpful, because I am not looking to write Haskell in Caml! Of the proof assistants, Coq and Agda both look interesting. In particular, Coq would provide a solid introduction to constructive logic and formal type theory. I've spent a little time with first-order predicate and modal logic (Mendellsohn, Enderton, some of Hinman), so I would probably have a lot of fun with Coq.
2) Others heavily favored Lisp (Common Lisp, Scheme and Clojure). From what I gather, both Common Lisp and Scheme have excellent introductory material (On Lisp and The Reasoned Schemer, SICP). The material in SICP causes me to lean towards Scheme. In particular, Scheme through SICP would cover a different evaluation strategy, the implementation of laziness, and a chance to focus on topics like continuations, interpreters, symbolic computation, and so on. Finally, as others have pointed out, Lisp's treatment of code/data would be entirely new. Hence, I am leaning heavily towards option (2), a Lisp.
3) Third, Prolog. Prolog has a wealth of interesting material, and its primary domain is exactly the one I'm interested in. It has a simple syntax and is easy to read. I can't comment more at the moment, but after reading an overview of Prolog and skimming some introductory material, it ranks with (2). And it seems like Prolog's backtracking is always being hacked into Haskell!
4) Of the mainstream languages, Python looks the most interesting. Tim Yates makes the languages sound very appealing. Apparently, Python is often taught to first-year CS majors; so it's either conceptually rich or easy to learn. I'd have to do more research.
Thank you all for your recommendations! It looks like a Lisp (Scheme, Clojure), Prolog, or a proof assistant like Coq or Agda are the main langauages being recommended.
I would like to broaden my knowledge of programming. (...) I thought I would pose the question here, along with several stipulations about the type of language I am looking for. Some are subjective, some are intended to ease the transition from Haskell.
Strong type system. (...) It also makes informally reasoning about the correctness of my program easier. I'm concerned with correctness, not efficiency.
Emphasis on recursion rather than iteration. (...)
You may be easing the transition a bit too much here, I'm afraid. The very strict type system and purely functional style are characteristic of Haskell and pretty much anything resembling a mainstream programming language will require compromising at least somewhat on one of these. So, with that in mind, here are a few broad suggestions aimed at retaining most of what you seem to like about Haskell, but with some major shift.
Disregard practicality and go for "more Haskell than Haskell": Haskell's type system is full of holes, due to nontermination and other messy compromises. Clean up the mess and add more powerful features and you get languages like Coq and Agda, where a function's type contains a proof of its correctness (you can even read the function arrow -> as logical implication!). These languages have been used for mathematical proofs and for programs with extremely high correctness requirements. Coq is probably the most prominent language of the style, but Agda has a more Haskell-y feel (as well as being written in Haskell itself).
Disregard types, add more magic: If Haskell is sorcery, Lisp is the raw, primal magic of creation. Lisp-family languages (also including Scheme and Clojure) have nearly unparalleled flexibility combined with extreme minimalism. The languages have essentially no syntax, writing code directly in the form of a tree data structure; metaprogramming in a Lisp is easier than non-meta programming in some languages.
Compromise a bit and move closer to the mainstream: Haskell falls into the broad family of languages influenced heavily by ML, any of which you could probably shift to without too much difficulty. Haskell is one of the strictest when it comes to correctness guarantees from types and use of functional style, where others are often either hybrid styles and/or make pragmatic compromises for various reasons. If you want some exposure to OOP and access to lots of mainstream technology platforms, either Scala on the JVM or F# on .NET have a lot in common with Haskell while providing easy interoperability with the Java and .NET platforms. F# is supported directly by Microsoft, but has some annoying limitations compared to Haskell and portability issues on non-Windows platforms. Scala has direct counterparts to more of Haskell's type system and Java's cross-platform potential, but has a more heavyweight syntax and lacks the powerful first-party support that F# enjoys.
Most of those recommendations are also mentioned in other answers, but hopefully my rationale for them offers some enlightenment.
I'm going to be That Guy and suggest that you're asking for the wrong thing.
First you say that you want to broaden your horizons. Then you describe the kind of language that you want, and its horizons sound incredibly like the horizons you already have. You're not going to gain very much by learning the same thing over and over.
I would suggest you learn a Lisp — i.e. Common Lisp, Scheme/Racket or Clojure. They're all dynamically typed by default, but feature some sort of type hinting or optional static typing. Racket and Clojure are probably your best bets.
Clojure is more recent and has more Haskellisms like immutability by default and lots of lazy evaluation, but it's based on the Java Virtual Machine, which means it has some odd warts (e.g. the JVM doesn't support tail call elimination, so recursion is kind of a hack).
Racket is much older, but has picked up a lot of power along the way, such as static type support and a focus on functional programming. I think you'd probably get the most out of Racket.
The macro systems in Lisps are very interesting and vastly more powerful than anything you'll see anywhere else. That alone is worth at least looking at.
From the standpoint of what suits your major, the obvious choice seems like a logic language such as Prolog or its derivatives. Logic programming can be done very neatly in a functional language (see, e.g. The Reasoned Schemer) , but you might enjoy working with the logic paradigm directly.
An interactive theorem proving system such as twelf or coq might also strike your fancy.
I'd advise you learn Coq, which is a powerful proof assistant with syntax that will feel comfortable to the Haskell programmer. The cool thing about Coq is it can be extracted to other functional languages, including Haskell. There is even a package (Meldable-Heap) on Hackage that was written in Coq, had properties proven about its operation, then extracted to Haskell.
Another popular language that offers more power than Haskell is Agda - I don't know Agda beyond knowing it is dependently typed, on Hackage, and well respected by people I respect, but those are good enough reasons to me.
I wouldn't expect either of these to be easy. But if you know Haskell and want to move forward to a language that gives more power than the Haskell type system then they should be considered.
As you didn't mention any restrictions besides your subjective interests and emphasize 'rewarding to learn' (well, ok, I'll ignore the static typing restriction), I would suggest to learn a few languages of different paradigms, and preferably ones which are 'exemplary' for each of them.
A Lisp dialect for the code-as-data/homoiconicity thing and because they are good, if not the best, examples of dynamic (more or less strict) functional programming languages
Prolog as the predominant logic programming language
Smalltalk as the one true OOP language (also interesting because of its usually extremely image-centric approach)
maybe Erlang or Clojure if you are interested in languages forged for concurrent/parallel/distributed programming
Forth for stack oriented programming
(Haskell for strict functional statically typed lazy programming)
Especially Lisps (CL not as much as Scheme) and Prolog (and Haskell) embrace recursion.
Although I am not a guru in any of these languages, I did spend some time with each of them, except Erlang and Forth, and they all gave me eye-opening and interesting learning experiences, as each one approaches problem solving from a different angle.
So, though it may seem as if I ignored the part about your having no time to try a few languages, I rather think that time spent with any of these will not be wasted, and you should have a look at all of them.
How about a stack-oriented programming language? Cat hits your high points. It is:
Statically typed with type inference.
Makes you re-think common imperative languages concepts like looping. Conditional execution and looping are handled with combinators.
Rewarding - forces you to understand yet another model of computation. Gives you another way to think about and decompose problems.
Dr. Dobbs published a short article about Cat in 2008 though the language has changed slightly.
If you want a strong(er)ly typed Prolog, Mercury is an interesting choice. I've dabbled in it in the past and I liked the different perspective it gave me. It also has moded-ness (which parameters need to be free/fixed) and determinism (how many results are there?) in the type system.
Clean is very similar to Haskell, but has uniqueness typing, which are used as an alternative to Monads (more specifically, the IO monad). Uniqueness typing also does interesting stuff to working with arrays.
I'm a bit late but I see that no one has mentioned a couple of paradigms and related languages that can interest you for their high-level of abstraction and generality:
rewriting systems, like Maude or ELAN;
Constraint Handling Rules (CHR).
Despite its failure to meet one of your big criteria (static* typing), I'm going to make a case for Python. Here are a few reasons I think you should take a look at it:
For an imperative language, it is surprisingly functional. This was one of the things that struck me when I learned it. Take list comprehensions, for example. It has lambdas, first-class functions, and many functionally-inspired compositions on iterators (maps, folds, zips...). It gives you the option of picking whatever paradigm suits the problem best.
IMHO, it is, like Haskell, beautiful to code in. The syntax is simple and elegant.
It has a culture that focuses on doing things in a straightforward way, rather than focusing too minutely on efficiency.
I understand if you are looking for something else though. Logic programming, for instance, might be right up your alley, as others have suggested.
* I assume you mean static typing here, since you want to declare the types. Techincally, Python is a strongly typed language, since you can't arbitrarily interpret, say, a string as an number. Interestingly, there are Python derivatives that allow static typing, like Boo.
I would recommend you Erlang. It is not strong typed language and you should try it. It is very different approach to programming and you may find that there are problems where strong typing is not The Best Tool(TM). Anyway Erlang provides you tools for static type verification (typer, dialyzer) and you can use strong typing on parts where you gain benefits from it. It can be interesting experience for you but be prepared, it will be very different feeling. If you are looking for "conceptually interesting paradigm" you can found them in Erlang, message passing, memory separation instead sharing, distribution, OTP, error handling and error propagation instead of error "prevention" and so. Erlang can be far away from your current experience but still brain tickling if you have experience with C and Haskell.
Given your description, I would suggest Ocaml or F#.
The ML family are generally very good in terms of a strong type system. The emphasis on recursion, coupled with pattern matching, is also clear.
Where I am a bit hesitant is on the rewarding to learn part. Learning them was rewarding for me, no doubt. But given your restrictions and your description of what you want, it seems you are not actually looking for something much more different than Haskell.
If you didn't put your restrictions I would have suggested Python or Erlang, both of which would take you out of your comfort zone.
In my experience, strong typing + emphasis on recursion means another functional programming language. Then again, I wonder if that's very rewarding, given that none of them will be as "pure" as Haskell.
As other posters have suggested, Prolog and Lisp/Scheme are nice, even though both are dynamically typed. Many great books with a strong theoretical "taste" to them have been published about Scheme in particular. Take a look at SICP, which also conveys a lot of general computer science wisdom (meta-circular interpreters and the like).
Factor will be a good choice.
You could start looking into Lisp.
Prolog is a cool language too.
If you decide to stray from your preference for a type system,you might be interested in the J programming language. It is outstanding for how it emphasizes function composition. If you like point-free style in Haskell, the tacit form of J will be rewarding. I've found it extraordinarily thought-provoking, especially with regard to semantics.
True, it doesn't fit your preconceptions as to what you'd like, but give it a look. Just knowing that it's out there is worth discovering. The sole source of complete implementations is J Software, jsoftware.com.
Go with one of the main streams. Given the resources available, future marketability of your skill, rich developer ecosystem I think you should start with either Java or C#.
Great question-- I've been asking it myself recently after spending several months thoroughly enjoying Haskell, although my background is very different (organic chemistry).
Like you, C and its ilk are out of the question.
I've been oscillating between Python and Ruby as the two practical workhorse scripting languages today (mules?) that both have some functional components to them to keep me happy. Without starting any Rubyist/Pythonist debates here, but my personal pragmatic answer to this question is:
Learn the one (Python or Ruby) that you first get an excuse to apply.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Look, for example at AppleScript (and there are plenty of others, some admittedly quite good) which advertise their use of the natural language metaphor. Code is apparently more readable because it can be/is intended to be constructed in English-like sentences, says they. I'm sure there are people who would like nothing better than to program using only English sentences. However, I have doubts about the viability of a language that takes that paradigm too far (excepting niche cases).
So, after a certain reasonable point, is natural-languaginess a benefit or a misfeature? What if the concept is carried to an extreme -- will code necessarily be more readable? Or might it be unnecessarily long, difficult to work with, and just as capable of producing hilarity on the scale of obfuscated Perl, obfuscated C, and eye-twisting Bash script logorrhea?
I am aware of some specialty cases like "Inform" that are almost pure English, but these have a niche that they're not likely to venture out from. I hear and read about how great it would be for code to read more like English sentences, but are there discussions of the possible disadvantages? If everyday language is so clear, simple, clean, lovely, concise, understandable, why did we invent mathematical notation in the first place?
Is it really easier to describe complex instructions accurately and precisely to a machine in natural language, or isn't something closer to mathematical markup a much better choice? Where should that line be drawn? And finally, are you attracted to languages that are touted as resembling English sentences? Should this whole question have just been a one liner:
naturalLanguage > computerishLanguage ? booAndHiss : cheerLoudly;
Well, of course, natural languages are rarely clear, simple, clean, lovely, concise, understandable which is one of the reasons that most programming is done in languages far from natural.
My answer to this would be that the ideal programming language lies somewhere between a natural language and a very formal language.
On the one extreme, there's the formal, minimal, mathematical languages. Take for example Brainfuck:
,>++++++[<-------->-],[<+>-]<. // according to Wikipedia, this means addition
Or, what's somewhat preferable to the above mess, any type of lambda calculus.
λfxy.x
λfxy.y
This is one possible way of expressing the Boolean truth values in lambda calculus. Doesn't look very neat, especially when you build logical operators (such as AND being e.g. λpq.pqp) around them.
I claim that most people could not write production code in such a minimalistic, hard-to-grasp language.
The problem on the other end of the spectrum, namely natural languages as they are spoken by humans, is that languages with too much complexity and flexibility allows the programmer to express vague and indefinite things that can mean nothing to today's computers. Let's take this sample program:
MAYBE IT WILL RAIN CATS AND DOGS LATER ON. WOULD YOU LIKE THIS, DEAR COMPUTER?
IF SO, PRINT "HELLO" ON THE SCREEN.
IF YOU HATE RAIN MORE THAN GEORGE DOES, PRINT SOME VAGUE GARBAGE INSTEAD.
(IN THE LATTER CASE, IT IS UP TO YOU WHERE YOU OUTPUT THAT GARBAGE.)
Now this is an obvious case of vagueness. But sometimes you would get things wrong with more reasonable natural language programs, such as:
READ AN INTEGER NUMBER FROM THE TERMINAL.
READ ANOTHER INTEGER NUMBER FROM THE TERMINAL.
IF IT IS LARGER THAN ZERO, PRINT AN ERROR.
Which number is IT referring to? And what kind of error should be printed (you forgot to specify it.) — You would have to be really careful to be extremely explicit about what you mean.
It's already too easy to mis-understand other humans. How do you expect a computer to do better?
Thus, a computer language's syntax and grammar has to be strict enough so that it doesn't allow ambiguity. A statement must evaluate in a deterministic way. (There are maybe corner cases; I'm talking about the general case here.)
I personally prefer languages with a very limited set of keywords. You can quickly learn such a language, and you don't have to choose between 10,000 ways of achieving one goal simply because there's 10,000 keywords for doing the same thing (as in: GO/WALK/RUN/TROD/SLEEPWALK/etc. TO THE FRIDGE AND GET ME A BEER!). It means if you need to think about 10,000 different ways of doing something, it won't be due to the language, but due to the fact that there are 9,999 stupid ways to do it, and 1 elegant solution that just shines more than all the others.
Note that I wrote all natural language examples in upper-case. That's because I sort of had good old GW-BASIC and COBOL in mind while I wrote this. There've been some examples of programming languages that lean on natural language, and I think history has shown that they are, in general, somewhat less widespread than e.g. terse C-style languages.
I recently read that according to Gartner there are over 400 billion lines of COBOL source code in active use worldwide today.
That doesn't prove anything other than that banks and governments are fond of their legacy code, but you could construe it as a testament to the success of English-like programming languages. I'm not aware of any other programming language that is so close to English and so verbose.
Aside from that, I tend to agree with the other respondents: Programmers prefer not to type so much, and in general a language based on mathematics-like shorthand is both more expressive and more precise than one based on English.
There's a point where terse, expressive code looks like line noise. Perl, APL and J come to mind as examples with "illegible one-liners." Programmers are humans, and it may be beneficial to leave them with some similarity to natural language to give their brains something familiar to hold on to. Thus, I propagate a happy medium that's reminiscent of but not too close to natural language.
"When a programming language is created that allows programmers to program in simple English, it will be discovered that programmers cannot speak English." ~ Unknown
In my (not so) humble opinion, no.
Natural language is full of ambiguities. Normally we do not think of them because humans can easily disambiguate them, based on many criteria often unavailable to the computer. First off we have knowledge about the world (elephants don't fit in pajamas), but also we use more senses than just hearing when we speak to each other, body language to name one. The intonation and manner things are said with also helps alot to disambiguate. It is harder to catch irony or sarcasm in written text, which is more or less a transcription of what we would say, more in the case IM less in the case of well written articles. In general there is loads and loads of ambiguity in natural language, for instance where the PPs, prepositional phrases attach:
"Workers [dumped [sacks [with flour]]]"
"Workers [dumped [sacks] [with a fork-lift]]]"
Any human immediatly tells where the PP will attach, its reasonable to have sacks with flour in them, and its reasonable to use a fork-lift to dump something. Another very troublesome area is the word "and" which messes up the grammar horrendously, or all the references we use, the pronouns in general, but also more complex references, ie. "Bill bought a Dodge Viper, sadly the car was a lemon".
So we have three options, keep the ambiguities in and try to deal with them, accepting very many errors in disambiguation and very very slow parsing, no LALR or LL will work here, or try to make an artifical grammar resembling natural language, and keeping it deterministic, which is more reasonable but still horrible. We now have a language that falsely resembles English, but it isn't which is confusing. We have none of the benefits of a proper syntax and none of the benefits of natural language, but an oversized overwordly monstrum, with a diffcult and unintuitive grammar, diffcult to learn and slow to write.
The third way is realizing we need a succinct way of expressing ourselves, which can also be processed by a computer, not resembling any natural language, but focusing on being an unambigous description of an algorithm. This will increase the readability, especially if we compare to a very precise natural language counter part. This is why many people prefer to also read the pseudo-code when dealing with difficult problems or advanced algorithms, it relieves us of the trouble with dealing with ambiguities, and is more optimal for expressing computer instructions.
The issue isn't so much that it's easier to describe complex ideas using one approach or the other, but it certainly is easier understanding machine languages (at least for machines). The biggest issue is, as always, ambiguity. Computers are terrible at understand it, so most grammars for programming languages need to be constructed to either remove all ambiguity, or the general language must be constructed so that ambiguity isn't actually a problem (this is tricky).
Any programming language that allows for ambiguity would be terribly error prone; and any natural language that doesn't allow ambiguity would be terribly verbose and convoluted (I'm looking at you, Lojban [ok, maybe Lojban isn't so bad‚ still…]).
The propensity some people show for preferring natural languages for programming languages might essentially root out in the desire to eventually be able to input a physics textbook into a parser, whereupon it'll do your homework when asked.
Of course, that's not to say that programming languages shouldn't have hints of natural language: Especially for OOP it makes good sense to have calling grammar resemble natural grammar, like in Obj-C, which is sort of a game of mad libs:
[pot makeCoffee:strong withSugar:NO];
Doing the same in BrainFuck would be, well, a brainfuck, three full pages of code to flip a switch will do that to you.
In essensce; the best languages are (probably) the ones that resemble natural languages, without pretending to be one. (Avoiding the uncanny valley of programming languages, [if there is such a thing] if you will. [Subclauses! Yay!])
A natural language is too ambiguous to be used as programming language. It has to be artificially constrained to eliminate ambiguities.
But it defeats the purpose of having a "natural" programming language, because you have its verbosity and none of its advantages in expressibility.
I think the fourth language I coded professionally in (after Fortran, Pascal and Cobol) was Natural. Which is a pretty obscure 4GL of 1980's vintage for developing mainframe systems against an ADABAS database.
Called Natural I believe because it had pretensions to be so. Supposedly management-readable like cobol, but minus the fluff.
Which should tell you that attempts at 'Natural' programming languages have a commercial history of over 30 years now (more if you count cobol) but they have pretty much lost out to languages that don't pretend to be 'natural' but do allow the programmer to define the problem succinctly. When I first started coding the 1GL -> 2GL -> 3GL evolution wasn't that old and the progression to 4GL (defined then as a more english-like programming languages) for mainstream work seem an obvious next step. It hasn't worked out that way. If anything getting up to speed with coding now has got harder because there's more abstract concepts to learn.
SQL was designed with natural language in mind originally. Fortunately it hasn't held on too tightly to this and advances since its conception are less "naturalistic".
But anybody that has tried to write a complicated query in SQL will tell you that its not that easy. You have worry about the range of some keywords over your query. You have this incredibly hard to understand query, that does some crazy shit, but you re-write it every time you need to change something because its easier.
Natural language programming is a bad idea. the further you get from assembly, the more mistakes you can make, not in terms of logical errors or anything like that, but in terms of having the wrong assumption about how the script interpreter/bytecode intepreter/compiler makes your code run on the CPU.
Is seems to be a great feature for beginners, or people who program as a "secondary activity". But I doubt you could reach the complexity and polyvalence of actual programming languages with natural language.
If there was a programming language that actually adhered to all of the conventions of the natural language it mimics, then that would be fantastic.
In reality, however, a lot of so-called "natural" programming languages have far stricter syntax than English, which means that although they are easily readable, it is debatable whether they are actually all that easy to write.
What makes sense in English is often a syntax error in AppleScript.
Everyday language isn't so clear, simple, clean, lovely, concise and understandable - to a computer. However, to a human, readability counts for a lot, and the closer you get to a natural language, the easier it is to read. That's why we're not all using assembly language.
If you have a completely natural language, there are a lot of things that need to be handled - the sentence needs to be parsed, each word must be understood - and there is plenty of room for ambiguity. That's generally not a good thing for a programming language, because then we're venturing into psychic programming - the computer has to figure out what you were thinking, which is not at all easy to get.
However, if you can make something sufficiently close to natural language - and yes, Inform 7 is probably the best example - so sentences look natural, but still have some structure you need to follow - then the code is almost instantly readable, even to people that don't know the language. There's usually also less specialized syntax to remember - because you're really just talking (a slightly modified form of) English - but if you have to do something out of the ordinary, then you might have to jump through some hoops to do that.
In practice, most languages don't bother with this, because that makes it easier for them to allow you to be precise. However, some will still hover closer to the "natural language". This can be a good thing: if you have to translate some pseudocode algorithm to a language, you don't need to manipulate it as much to make it work, reducing the risk that you make an error in the translation.
As an example, let's compare C and Pascal. This Pascal code:
for i := 1 to 10 do begin
j := j + 1;
end;
is equivalent to this C code:
for (i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
j = j + 1;
}
If you had no prior knowledge of either syntax, the Pascal version is generally going to be simpler to read, if only because it's not as complex as a C for.
Let's also consider operators. Pascal and C both share +, - and *. They also both have /, but with different semantics: In C, / does an integer division if both operands are integers; in Pascal, it always does a "real" division and uses div for integer division. That means that you have to take the types into account when figuring out what actually happens in that line of code.
C also has a bunch of other operators: &&, ||, &, |, ^, <<, >> - in Pascal, those operators are instead named and, or, and, or, xor, shl, shr. Instead of relying on some semi-arbitrary sequence of characters, it's spelled out more. It's instantly obvious that xor is - well, XOR - unlike the C version, where there's no obvious correlation between ^ and XOR.
Of course, this is to some degree a matter of opinion: I much prefer a Pascal-like syntax to a C-like syntax, because I think it's more readable, but that doesn't mean everyone else does: A more natural language is usually going to be more verbose, and some people simply dislike that extra level of verbosity.
Basically, it's a matter of choosing what makes the most sense for the problem domain: if the problem domain is very limited (like with Inform), then a natural language makes perfect sense. If it's a very generic domain (like with C), then you either need far more advanced processing than we are currently capable of, or a lot of verbosity to fill in the details - and in that case, you have to choose a balance depending on what sort of users will be using the languages (for regular people, you need more naturalness, for people who know programming, they're usually comfortable enough with less natural languages and will prefer something closer to that end).
I think the question is, who reads and who writes the application code in question? I think, regardless of the language or architecture, a trained software developer should be writing the code, and analyze the code as bugs arise.
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 12 years ago.
What's the best language (in terms of simplicity, readability and code elegancy) in your opinion, to learn and work with metaprogramming?
I think metaprogramming is the "future of coding". Not saying that code will extinct, but we can see this scenario coming on new technologies.
First -- I don't think I agree with your claim that "metaprogramming is the 'future of coding'". It's a great tool, but not everybody likes it (for example, the Java designers left macros out of the language intentionally -- not that I like Java, but people do have reasons to object to metaprogramming).
Anyway...
I can think of two different ways of doing metaprogramming: on the syntatic level and at runtime.
For syntax metaprogramming, I think Scheme is a good option (if you hadn't mentioned simplicity etc I'd suggest Common Lisp).
For runtime metaprogramming I guess both Prolog and Smalltalk are very interesting. (You can add, change and remove facts to a Prolog database on the fly; and you can change Smalltalk objects on the fly to). You can probably do runtime metaprogramming in Ruby too, but I don't know Ruby.
So --there are several different metaprogramming methods in Scheme (different macro systems). I suggest you take a look at some basic Scheme book and later read about two different macro systems.
Some good Scheme books:
Simply Scheme
Teach Yourself Scheme
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
Scheme implementations are very different from each other, so you'll also use your Scheme implementation manual a lot too.
Some places to learn about Scheme macros:
http://www.lispforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=100
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-metaprog2.html
http://chicken.wiki.br/explicit-renaming-macros
If you decide to use a language that's larger and messier than Scheme, try Common Lisp. There are three books that I'd suggest:
First, "Practical Common Lisp" by Peter seibel. That will get you started on Common Lisp and macros;
Second, "On Lisp" by Paul Graham. You'll then learn that macros are more powerful than what you had thought before, and will learn really nice techniques;
Third, "Let Over Lambda" by Doug Hoyte. An advanced book, best read after Graham's On Lisp.
For Prolog, you can read "Programming in Prolog" by Clocksin and Mellish (get the latest edition!) and later move on to "Prolog Programing in Depth" by Covington, Vellino and Nute. See chapter 6.
There are lots of good Smalltalk books. I like "The Art and Science of Smalltalk" by Simon Lewis.
There's a very nice free tutorial/primer by Canol Gokel about Smalltalk too (but it doesn't go as far as teaching metaprogramming).
What do you mean by metaprogramming? Metaprogramming is a set of concepts, rather than one specific technique.
See this answer where I've listed various concepts and related languages. Here is a summary:
Metaprogramming with macro --> Lisp
Metaprogramming with DSL --> Many languages for internal DSL, external DSL is more tricky
Reflection --> Smalltalk, Ruby
Annotations --> Java
Byte-code or AST transformation --> Groovy
See the complete answer for more details. Generally speaking, I think that a good OO all-rounder is Ruby. Otherwise any Lisp-like is will do the job: it's like putty in your hands. But that will depend on what you want to do...
The Lisps are pretty much the language of choice for a wide variety of metaprogramming techniques. Of the modern Lisps available, I would recommend Clojure as a more accessible Lisp that has access to a positively HUGE library (anything in Java land) if you want something that is both powerful and immediately useful.
For other approaches to metaprogramming almost any functional language will do the trick. Haskell is a good choice for learning techniques and functional programming but isn't what I'd call the most practical language to do real work in at this time. Erlang is more practical, but not quite as amenable to metaprogramming. OCaml is another possible choice but suffers a bit on the practicality front as well. It is more accessible than Haskell in many regards, however.
In the scripting language world Ruby is a language in which metaprogramming is a popular technique. Its approach is vaguely Lisp-like, but with a far more conventional syntax. It lacks the full power and flexibility of the Lisps, however, but on the other hand, with the exception of Clojure above, it has a lot more immediate practical utility.
Ruby has very powerful and flexible metaprogramming capabilities.
There are several languages that I would recommend for studying meta-programing.
The first is Prolog. A Prolog program is a database. Prolog "code", the clauses, are part of the data. The program can read them, including their content. It can also generate new code as a data structure and assert it, thus changing itself on run-time. All of this without using term expansion, which is Prolog's smart macros system. Some Prolog AI books start with implementing a meta-interpreter in Prolog, and then changing it by need.
The second is, as mentioned, Lisp, and particularly CLOS (Common List Object System), which includes commands for meta-OOP.
Finally, Python support a nice and not too obscure mechanism for run-time meta-programming, which is it's meta-classes (classes that create classes).
I'm surprised no one has mentioned ML. ML stands for Meta Language. so... yeah... CaML is a standard implementation. (OCaML, which JUST MY correct OPINIO mentioned is the OO version of CaML, which probably adds features that make the meta-programming less obvious...)
Other than that, I am a big fan of Scheme, but pretty much any Functional programming language is good for this... There's always the Little Lisper, er, sorry, the Little Schemer...
Don't know if we have the same definition of "meta programming" but there is certainly not ONE best language to learn. I would propose that you have a deeper look at functional programming. Which language to choose for that depends on your background and working environment. I would choose F# at the moment, but Haskel should also be a good choice.
cheers,
Achim
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 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I'm interested in compilers, interpreters and languages.
What is the most interesting, but forgotten or unknown, language you know about? And more importantly, why?
I'm interested both in compiled, interpreted and VM languages, but not esoteric languages like Whitespace or BF. Open source would be a plus, of course, since I plan to study and hopefully learn from it.
I love compilers and VMs, and I love Lua.
Lua is not as well supported as many other scripting languages, but from a mindset like yours I'm sure you will fall in love with Lua too. I mean it's like lisp, (can do anything lisp can as far as I know), has lots of the main features from ADA, plus it's got meta programming built right in, with functional programming and object oriented programming loose enough to make any type of domain language you might want. Besides the VM's code is simple C which means you can easily dig right into it to appreciate even at that level.
(And it's open-source MIT license)
I am a fan of the D programming language. Here is a wikipedia article and and intro from the official site.
Some snippets from the wikipedia article:
The D programming language, also known simply as D, is an object-oriented, imperative, multiparadigm system programming language by Walter Bright of Digital Mars. It originated as a re-engineering of C++, but even though it is predominantly influenced by that language, it is not a variant of C++. D has redesigned some C++ features and has been influenced by concepts used in other programming languages, such as Java, C# and Eiffel. A stable version, 1.0, was released on January 2, 2007. An experimental version, 2.0, was released on June 17, 2007.
on features:
D is being designed with lessons learned from practical C++ usage rather than from a theoretical perspective. Even though it uses many C/C++ concepts it also discards some, and as such is not strictly backward compatible with C/C++ source code. It adds to the functionality of C++ by also implementing design by contract, unit testing, true modules, garbage collection, first class arrays, associative arrays, dynamic arrays, array slicing, nested functions, inner classes, closures[2], anonymous functions, compile time function execution, lazy evaluation and has a reengineered template syntax. D retains C++'s ability to do low-level coding, and adds to it with support for an integrated inline assembler. C++ multiple inheritance is replaced by Java style single inheritance with interfaces and mixins. D's declaration, statement and expression syntax closely matches that of C++.
I guess a lot depends on what you mean by 'non-mainstream'.
Would lisp count as non-mainstream?
I would suggest having a look at Erlang - it's been getting a bit of press recently, so some of the learning resources are excellent. If you've used OO and/or procedural languages, Erlang will definitely bend your mind in new and exciting ways.
Erlang is a pure functional language, with ground-up support for concurrent, distributed and fault-tolerant programs. It has a number of interesting features, including the fact that variables aren't really variables at all - they cannot be changed once declared, and are in fact better understood as a form of pattern.
There is some talk around the blogosphere about building on top of the Erlang platform (OTP) and machine support for other languages like Ruby - Erlang would then become a kind of virtual machine for running concurrent apps, which would be a pretty exciting possibility.
I've recently fallen in love with Ocaml and functional languages in general.
Ocaml, for instance, offers the best of all possible worlds. You get code that compiles to executable native machine language as fast as C, or universally portable byte code. You get an interpreter to bring REPL-speed to development. You get all the power of functional programming to produce perfectly orthogonal structures, deep recursion, and true polymorphism. Atop all of this is support for Object-Orientation, which in the context of a functional language that already provides everything OOP promises (encapsulation, modularization, orthogonal functions, and polymorphic recyclability), means OOP that is forced to actually prove itself.
Smalltalk (see discussion linked here). Sort of the grand-daddy of the dynamic languages (with the possible exception of Lisp and SNOBOL). Very nice to work with and sadly trampled by Java and now the newer languages like Python and Ruby.
FORTH was a language designed for low level code on early CPU's. Its most notable feature was RPN stack based math operations. The same type of math used on early HP calculators. For example 1+2+3+4= would be written as 1, 2, 3, 4, + , +, +
Haskell and REBOL are both fascinating languages, for very different reasons.
Haskell can really open your eyes as a developer, with concepts like monads, partial application, pattern matching, algebraic types, etc. It's a smorgasbord for the curious programmer.
REBOL is no slouch either. It's deceptively simple at first, but when you begin to delve into concepts like contexts, PARSE dialects, and Bindology, you realize there's much more than meets the eye. The nice thing about REBOL is that it's much easier to get started with it than with Haskell.
I can't decide which I like better.
Boo targets the .NET framework and is open source. Inspired by Python.
Try colorForth.
PROLOG is a rule-based language with back-track functionality. You can produce very human-readable (as in prosa) code.
I find constraint languages interesting, but it is hard to know what constitutes forgotten or unknown. Here are some languages I know about (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of any kind):
Ciao, YAP, SWI-Prolog, and GNU Prolog are all Prolog implementations. I think they are all open source. Ciao, gnu prolog, and probably the others also, as is common in Prolog implementations, support other constraint types. Integer programming for example.
Mozart and Mercury are both, as I understand it, alternative logic programming languages.
Alice is more in the ML family, but supports constraint programming using the GECODE C++ library.
Drifting a little bit off topic....
Maude is an interesting term rewrite language.
HOL and COQ are both mechanized proof systems which are commonly used in the languages community.
Lambda-the-Ultimate is a good place to talk about and learn more about programming languages.
I would have to say Scheme, especially in it's R6RS incarnation.
Modula-2 is the non-mainstream language that I've found most interesting. Looks mainstream, but doesn't quite work like what we're used to. Inherits a lot from Pascal, and yet is different enough to provide interesting learning possibilities.
Have a look at Io at http://www.iolanguage.com/
or Lisaac at: https://gna.org/projects/isaac/
or Self at: http://self.sourceforge.net/
or Sather (now absolutly forgotten)
or Eiffel http://www.eiffel.com
Why here are a few reasons. Io is absolutly minimalistic and does not even have "control flow elements" as syntacit entities. Lisaad is a follow-up to Eiffel with many simplifications AFAIKT. Self is a followup to Smalltalk and Io has taken quite alot from Self also. The base thing is that the distinction between Class and Object has been given up. Sather is a anwer to Eiffel with a few other rules and better support for functional programming (right from the start).
And Eiffel is definitly a hallmark for statically typed OO-languages. Eiffel was the first langauge whith support for Design by contract, generics (aka templates) and one of the best ways to handle inheritance. It was and is one of the simpler languages still. I for my part found the best libraries for Eiffel.....
It's creator just has one problem, he did not accept other contributions to the OO field.....
Regards
I recently learned of the existence of Icon from this question.
I have since used it in answers to several questions. (1, 2, 3, 4)
It's interesting because of its evaluation strategy - it is the only imperative language I know that supports backtracking. It allows some nice succinct code for many things :)
Learning any language that requires you to rethink your programming habits is a must. A sure sign is the pace at which you skim through the documentation of a language's core (not library). Fast meaning fruitless here.
My short list would be, in my order of exposure and what were the concepts I learned from them:
Assembly, C: great for learning pointers and their arithmetic.
C++: same as C with an introduction to generics, as long as you can stand the incredibly verbose syntax.
Ruby/Lua: scripting languages, dynamically typed, writing bindings for existing C libraries.
Python/C#/Java: skipped, these languages look to me as a rehash of notions originating elsewhere with a huge standard library. Sure the whole packages are nice, but you won't learn new concepts here.
OCaml: type infererence done right, partial application, compiler infered genericity, immutability as a default, how to handle nulls elegantly.
Haskell: laziness by default, monads.
My €.02.
I can't believe Logo is so forgotten. Ok, it's Logo. Sort of like lisp, but with slightly uglier syntax. Although working with lists in Logo, one encounters the delightfully named 'butfirst' and 'butlast' operations. =P
ML. Learning it and using it forces you think differently about programming problems differently. It also grants one patience, in most cases. Most.
How about go? It's brand new, so it's unknown and not mainstream (yet).
It's interesting because the syntax looks like what happens after you put C and pascal into a jar and make 'em fight.
Well once it was called MUMPS but now its called InterSystems Caché
http://www.intersystems.com/cache/
First answer - Scheme. It's not too widely used, but definitely seems like a solid language to use, especially considering the robustness of DrScheme (which in fact compiles Scheme programs to native binary code).
After that - Haskell is incredibly interesting. It's a language which does lazy evaluation right, and the consequences are incredible (including such things as a one-line definition of the fibonnaci sequence).
Going more mainstream, Python is still not really widely accepted in the business circles, but it definitely should be, by now...
Ken Kahn's ToonTalk, a cartoon language with hard-core theoretic underpinnings:
http://www.toontalk.com/
Prograph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prograph ... seems Prograph lives on as Marten:
http://andescotia.com/products/marten/
Self's IDE was/is a thing of beauty, talk about Flow (in the Csíkszentmihályi sense)...
Overall, though, I'd have to say Haskell is the most interesting, for the potential adavances in computing that it represents.
Harbour for dynamic type. Great opition to business apps.
Reia!
http://wiki.reia-lang.org/wiki/Reia_Programming_Language
It's Erlang made sense, it's beutifull and I'm in love. It's so unknown that it doesn't even have a wikipedia page!
The first major (non-BASIC) language that I learned was Dream Maker, from http://www.byond.com.
It's somewhat similar to C++ or Java, but it's largely pre-built for designing multiplayer online games. It's very much based on inheritance.
It's an intersting language especially as a starting language, it gets gratifying results quicker, and lets be honest, most people who are first learning to program are interested in one thing... games.
I find Factor, Oz and OCaml quite interesting. In fact, I have started using Factor for personal projects.
Rebol of course !
It's so simple but so powerfull learn it at http://reboltutorial.com
I've recently looked up a lot about Windows PowerShell.
While not necessarily just a language. It's an awesome shell that has a built-in scripting language. It's basically a super-beefed up command line shell.
Unlike Unix shells, where everything is string text (which definitely has it's benefits), PowerShell commands (cmdlets) use objects. It's based on the .Net framework so you guys who are familiar with that will have probably already figured out that anything PowerShell returns can be piped and the properties and methods of that object can be used. It's fun to say "everything is an object!" again just like when OOP was getting big.
Very neat stuff. For the first time, Windows is implementing some of the Unix command-line interface tools similar to grep and the whole bunch.
If you're interested in VMs, you should look at Parrot...There's a bunch of languages supported and that's pretty neat....
O'caml is a good language if you want to learn how to implement a compiler...