Re: Obix language not available

"cr88192" <>
15 Jul 2003 23:52:02 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Obix language available (Christian Neumanns) (2003-07-13)
Re: Obix language not available (John Levine) (2003-07-15)
Re: Obix language not available (cr88192) (2003-07-15)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "cr88192" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.misc,comp.misc
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Date: 15 Jul 2003 23:52:02 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews,
References: 03-07-084
Keywords: OOP, design
Posted-Date: 15 Jul 2003 23:52:02 EDT

> Hello everybody,
> About 1.5 years ago I started to develop a new, object-oriented programming
> language, called Obix. The motto I kept in mind from the beginning on is:
> increased
> - reliability
> - productivity
> - ease-of-use
> of professional software development

I started earlier 2002. my goal at the time was to make a scheme
system. later I decided to get more creative, and branched it off
into my own language effort, then more recently to try to tie it a
little closer to more clasical scheme...

I am half considering an alternate syntax (besides my last syntax).
basic idea is:
line oriented;
block structuring;
infix notation.

basically it would be another mod on s-expressions, however I was
imagining that indentation would not matter and {...} could be used
for blocks. #{...} could be similar but could inline multiple
expressions. lines could be broken with '\'.

foo => (foo), basic lines are wrapped
foo x => (foo x), same
{x y} => (begin x y), blocks wrap basic contents in begin.
#{x y} => x y, this inlines.
foo \
x => (foo x)

blocks would allways try to merge with the last statement.

function fact (x)
        if (x <= 1) 1 (x * (fact (x - 1)))

of course this may not be worth implementing...

> Obix has built-in features which I consider as indispensable for creating
> high quality software, but which are absent in most programming languages,
> such as:
> - design by contract
> - automated testing
> - default input and multiple output arguments
> and many more
a fair amount to claim.

> You can find much more information at
> I would greatly appreciate getting feedback about things you like/dislike
> about other features that would simplify the programmer's life.
quick skim. too tired to read much. seems a little vague. no comments I had
not seen given by others as of now.

I try to figure what I can achieve by trying to implement it, though I doubt
anyone believes me...


yes, things are lame. I work on it...
I need a good/working/demonstratable system for me to try to demonstrate my
ideas (many of which are nothing new). demonstratable implies that I create
a demonstration, but doing stuff is effort... I like to try to code stuff,
more so than wanting to make demonstration stuff...

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.