This is a very "high-level" question. I'm looking for insight into this problem that c# has.
It has so many features that it supports almost ANY task, alas there are alternatives that are better suited for some tasks.
With the advent of MVC(old news) + ruby, people are starting to have "fun" AND getting things to work.
C# seems like a "get it done" language. It has so many libraries that knowing what to use has become more important than anything else.
So... IF one had to use C# to develop an "objective" oriented design AND having a ruby-like fun doing it... What features would best suit this "style"?
//C# 4 included//
PS. By objective i do not mean object oriented. "The Objective-C model of object-oriented programming is based on message passing to object instances. In Objective-C one does not call a method; one sends a message."
If you really want to use .NET and the 'Ruby' style, then why not try IronRuby?
The closest thing is could find is CCR and DSS.
Check you VPL on Microsoft Robotics Studio 2008 R3.
This approach seems to best fit the message-passing "feature" and promises to "objectivize" .net development.
This was a VERY interesting read on the subject:
http://blog.wekeroad.com/2010/08/09/csharps-new-clothes
Related
I'm currently creating a roguelike game and have already started coding in C# but have not coded much (<1000 lines) so far...
Now again, I have had a look at F# and this language seems to be very cool...I'm considering now using F# for the game engine, which, I think, will be 90% of the codeline (A roguelike has a very 'lean' ASCII-UI).
Do you think, F# would be better suited than C# concerning writing coding for procedural content generation, complex AI and game logic? Do you see any traps (apart from that I have to master the language first, of course)?
I've some concerns if F# is not just a research project and will be abandoned by Microsoft or are there statements that it is now a major .NET language?
Thanks for your input.
I don't see any traps.
F# fully supports .NET and even though it's mainly a functional languague you can implement the OO paradigma without a problem.
Also interop with C# is very well possible, so you could even go back to C# without giving up your F# code.
And as for it's future :
It's now part of VS as a stable language, so it's going very much in the direction of being one of the main .NET languages together with VB and C#.
F# is now a full MS product, and functional programming will be increasingly important in the future, so I wouldn't worry about MS losing interest in it any time soon.
F# should be a great choice here. I suspect you'll have some interesting state machines and I've found F# to be particularly good for that.
Hopefully this question won't be too convoluted or vague. I know what I want in my head, so fingers crossed I can get this across in text.
I'm looking for a language with a syntax of my own specification, so I assume I will need to create one myself. I've spent the last few days reading about compilers, lexers, parsers, assembly language, virtual machines, etc, and I'm struggling to sort everything out in terms of what I need to accomplish my goals (file attached at the bottom with some specifications). Essentially, I'm deathly confused as to what tools specifically I will need to use to go forward.
A little background: the language made would hopefully be used to implement a multiplayer, text-based MUD server. Therefore, it needs easy inbuilt functionality for creating/maintaining client TCP/IP connections, non-blocking IO, database access via SQL or similar. I'm also interested in security insofar as I don't want code that is written for this language to be able to be stolen and used by the general public without specialist software. This probably means that it should compile to object code
So, what are my best options to create a language that fits these specifications
My conclusions are below. This is just my best educated guess, so please contest me if you think I'm heading in the wrong direction. I'm mostly only including this to see how very confused I am when the experts come to make comments.
For code security, I should want a language that compiles and is run in a virtual machine. If I do this, I'll have a hell of a lot of work to do, won't I? Write a virtual machine, assembler language on the lower-level, and then on the higher-level, code libraries to deal with IO, sockets, etc myself, rather than using existing modules?
I'm just plain confused.
I'm not sure if I'm making sense.
If anyone could settle my brain even a little bit, I'd sincerely appreciate it! Alternatively, if I'm way off course and there's a much easier way to do this, please let me know!
Designing a custom domain-specific programming language is the right approach to a problem. Actually, almost all the problems are better approached with DSLs. Terms you'd probably like to google are: domain specific languages and language-oriented programming.
Some would say that designing and implementing a compiler is a complicated task. It is not true at all. Implementing compilers is a trivial thing. There are hordes of high-quality compilers available, and all you need to do is to define a simple transform from your very own language into another, or into a combination of the other languages. You'd need a parser - it is not a big deal nowdays, with Antlr and tons of homebrew PEG-based parser generators around. You'd need something to define semantics of your language - modern functional programming langauges shines in this area, all you need is something with a support for ADTs and pattern matching. You'd need a target platform. There is a lot of possibilities: JVM and .NET, C, C++, LLVM, Common Lisp, Scheme, Python, and whatever else is made of text strings.
There are ready to use frameworks for building your own languages. Literally, any Common Lisp or Scheme implementation can be used as such a framework. LLVM has all the stuff you'd need too. .NET toolbox is ok - there is a lot of code generation options available. There are specialised frameworks like this one for building languages with complex semantics.
Choose any way you like. It is easy. Much easier than you can imagine.
Writing your own language and tool chain to solve what seems to be a standard problem sounds like the wrong way to go. You'll end up developing yet another language, not writing your MUD.
Many game developers take an approach of using scripting languages to describe their own game world, for example see: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1570/reflections_on_building_three_.php
Also see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/356160/which-game-scripting-language-is-better-to-use-lua-or-python for using existing languages (Pythong and LUA) in this case for in-game scripting.
Since you don't know a lot about compilers and creating computer languages: Don't. There are about five people in the world who are good at it.
If you still want to try: Creating a good general purpose language takes at least 3 years. Full time. It's a huge undertaking.
So instead, you should try one of the existing languages which solves almost all of your problems already except maybe the "custom" part. But maybe the language does things better than you ever imagined and you don't need the "custom" part at all.
Here are two options:
Python, a beautiful scripting language. The VM will compile the language into byte code for you, no need to waste time with a compiler. The syntax is very flexible but since there is a good reason for everything in Python, it's not too flexible.
Java. With the new Xtext framework, you can create your own languages in a couple of minutes. That doesn't mean you can create a good language in a few minutes. Just a language.
Python comes with a lot of libraries but if you need anything else, the air gets thin, quickly. On a positive side, you can write a lot of good and solid code in a short time. One line of python is usually equal to 10 lines of Java.
Java doesn't come with a lot of frills but there a literally millions of frameworks out there which do everything you can image ... and a lot of things you can't.
That said: Why limit yourself to one language? With Jython, you can run Python source in the Java VM. So you can write the core (web server, SQL, etc) in Java and the flexible UI parts, the adventures and stuff, in Python.
If you really want to create your own little language, a simpler and often quicker solution is to look at tools like lex and yacc and similar systems (ANTLR is a popular alternative), and then you can generate code either to an existing virtual machine or make a simple one yourself.
Making it all yourself is a great learning-experience, and will help you understand what goes on behind the scenes in other virtual machines.
An excellent source for understanding programming language design and implementation concepts is Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs from MIT Press. It's a great read for anyone wanting to design and implement a language, or anyone looking to generally become a better programmer.
From what I can understand from this, you want to know how to develop your own programming language.
If so, you can accomplish this by different methods. I just finished up my own a few minutes ago and I used HTML and Javascript (And DOM) to develop my very own. I used a lot of x.split and x.indexOf("code here")!=-1 to do so... I don't have much time to give an example, but if you use W3schools and search "indexOf" and "split" I am sure that you will find what you might need.
I would really like to show you what I did and past the code below, but I can't due to possible theft and claim of my work.
I am pretty much just here to say that you can make your own programming language using HTML and Javascript, so that you and other might not get their hopes too low.
I hope this helps with most things....
Microsoft's Concurrency and Coordination Runtime quite literally saved a project that was running into major issues with deadlocking. Since then I find that I use it more and more frequently for almost anything that requires asynchronous coding producing results that run lighter and faster than before. I can honestly state that it has transformed the way I think about multithread/multicore dev. Despite my personal love for CCR, there appears to be very little buzz surrounding it on the web and was wondering if anyone can offer any reason for this. Are there better alternatives, or is it a lack of promotion from MS, or are people simply happy with the existing tools?
I would suggest that TPL Dataflow, to be released as part of .Net 4.5, will eventually supersede the CCR. Most concepts in the CCR have an analogue in Dataflow although it isn't necessarily a straightforward porting exercise.
That said, the Robotics Studio Developer 4 Beta 2, released November 2011, does include a version of the CCR for Silverlight 4.
The licensing around it is a bit of a pain, from what I remember.
I think most people are waiting for Parallel Extensions in .NET 4.0. I know it's not quite the same thing, but it's still a lot better than what's in the framework at the moment - and although the continuations don't work the same way, at least they're there :)
I suspect that Parallel Extensions has had rather more work on it than CCR - although I'm sure the CCR work inspired some of the design of PFX as well.
I, too, have a personal love for the CCR... I certainly have not seen anything quite the equivalent of it in .NET or elsewhere. I think it's too bad that I think Jon's right and it will likely be relegated to a niche of enthusiastic fans like us, while most mainstream .NET multithreading will probably be done with the Parallel Extensions.
I'm particularly disappointed in this prognosis because I think more could be done to promote it - say maybe fit it into an enterprise reliable async message bus-type framework, which I think is lacking a coherent story in .NET. Also, from looking at the Microsoft CCR/DSS Site I would probably never have thought to try it... I don't understand why it was packaged up this way - other than the fact that several companies ripped it out of the Robotics toolkit and just ran with it before MS thought it had a purpose beyond robotics.
Anyway, you're not alone... and there are lots of other CCR 'enthusiasts' as well. Here's a neat 'flow' based CodePlex project that wraps the CCR in an interesting flow paradigm.
I have been enjoying using the CCR in two major projects so far. The first one is terrible (didn't really get the Causality pattern idea) And the second one is coming along brilliantly (Web crawler)
Both projects are utilize the message based paradigm to avoid waiting for slow running IO operations. The CCR is quite good to work with once you solve the lack of a compatable ORM mapper. (I'm considering releasing some of the plumbing code that i've written to save other people the heart ache)
Having said that, RX looks quite interesting. I'm curious how it compares in terms of Error handling, speed and reliability.
Microsoft Robotics Studio 2008 R3 is now available and now free for everyone to use.
I believe a functional language would be helpful for the domain my company works in (financial) where we read in a ton of data, do some mathematical processing on it, and then store it again. Something which is fundamentally very parallelizable and not well-suited to extensive object-graphs with state (in my estimation).
As a .NET shop, I immediately thought of F# but I'm wary of the fact that the words "research" are prominently interspersed throughout almost all of the MS materials on it.
Does anyone know if F# is going to be something which MS is going to support going forward or would I be better of trying to convince the powers that be to go with Scheme/Haskell/et al?
It is going to be in visual studio 2k10 as a formal language.
(See e.g.
http://blogs.msdn.com/dsyme/archive/2008/12/10/fsharp-to-ship-as-part-of-visual-studio-2010.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/dsyme/archive/2009/05/20/visual-studio-2010-beta1-with-f-is-now-available-plus-matching-f-ctp-update-for-vs2008.aspx )
Microsoft seems to be really gung-ho about promoting F# as a first-class language in the new Visual Studio, so I expect that they will continue supporting it with tools and documentation for quite a while.
See also e.g.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/966039/which-companies-are-using-f-internally-and-what-are-they-using-it-for
which is suggestive of a few big companies that are already using F#.
I recently began to read some F# related literature, speaking of "Real World Functional Programming" and "Expert F#" e. g.. At the beginning it's easy, because I have some background in Haskell, and know C#. But when it comes to "Language Oriented Programming" I just don't get it. - I read some explanations and it's like reading an academic paper that gets more abstract and strange with every sentence.
Does anybody have an easy example for that kind of stuff and how it compares to existing paradigms? It's not just academic fantasy, isn't it? ;)
Thanks,
wishi
Language oriented program (LOP) can be used to describe any of the following.
Creating an external language (DSL)
This is perhaps the most common use of LOP, and is where you have a specific domain - such as UPS shipping packages via transit types through routes, etc. Rather than try to encode all of these domain-specific entities inside of program code, you rather create a separate programming language for just that domain. So you can encode your problem in a separate, external language.
Creating an internal language
Sometimes you want your program code to look less like 'code' and map more closely to the problem domain. That is, have the code 'read more naturally'. A fluent interface is an example of this: Fluent Interface. Also, F# has Active Patterns which support this quite well.
I wrote a blog post on LOP a while back that provides some code examples.
F# has a few mechanisms for doing programming in a style one might call "language-oriented".
First, the syntax niceties (function calls don't need parentheses, can define own infix operators, ...) make it so that many user-defined libraries have the appearance of embedded DSLs.
Second, the F# "quotations" mechanism can enable you to quote code and then run it with an alternative semantics/evaluation engine.
Third, F# "computation expressions" (aka workflows, monads, ...) also provide a way to provide a type of alternative semantics for certain blocks of code.
All of these kinda fall into the EDSL category.
In Object Oriented Programming, you try to model a problem using Objects. You can then connect those Objects together to perform functions...and in the end solve the original problem.
In Language Oriented Programming, rather than use an existing Object Oriented or Functional Programming Language, you design a new Domain Specific Language that is best suited to efficiently solve your problem.
The term language Oriented Programming may be overloaded in that it might have different meanings to different people.
But in terms of how I've used it, it means that you create a DSL(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Specific_Language) before you start to solve your problem.
Once your DSL is created you would then write your program in terms of the DSL.
The idea being that your DSL is more suited to expressing the problem than a General purpose language would be.
Some examples would be the make file syntax or Ruby on Rails ActiveRecord class.
I haven't directly used language oriented programming in real-world situations (creating an actual language), but it is useful to think about and helps design better domain-driven objects.
In a sense, any real-world development in Lisp or Scheme can be considered "language-oriented," since you are developing the "language" of your application and its abstract tree as you code along. Cucumber is another real-world example I've heard about.
Please note that there are some problems to this approach (and any domain-driven approach) in real-world development. One major problem that I've dealt with before is mismatch between the logic that makes sense in the domain and the logic that makes sense in software. Domain (business) logic can be extremely convoluted and senseless - and causes domain models to break down.
An easy example of a domain-specific language, mentioned here, is SQL. Also: UNIX shell scripts.
Of course, if you are doing a lot of basic ops and have a lot of overlap with the underlying language, it is probably overengineering.