Re: simple vs complex languages

David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
12 May 2003 01:40:02 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: simple vs complex languages Robert@Knighten.org (2003-05-06)
Re: simple vs complex languages scott.moore6@attbi.com (Scott Moore) (2003-05-06)
Re: simple vs complex languages tmk@netvision.net.il (2003-05-06)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages George.Russell@cis.strath.ac.uk (George Richard Russell) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages torbenm@diku.dk (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages bear@sonic.net (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages bear@sonic.net (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-14)
Re: simple vs complex languages bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-05-15)
Re: simple vs complex languages lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-05-15)
[26 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 May 2003 01:40:02 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
References: 03-04-095 03-04-112 03-05-006
Keywords: parse, visual
Posted-Date: 12 May 2003 01:40:02 EDT

Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile@starynkevitch.net> writes:


>I really think it is a pity that no language offers a fancier
>interface than plain textual files, typed thru an editor. The syntax
>directed editors of the late 1980's are gone.


>[There have certainly been visual languages with spiffy editors to
>manage them. They don't seem to have solved any problems interesting
>enough for people to keep using them. -John]


Will, my 9-year-old son, programs his Lego robots with a purely visual
language. He creates and edits by dragging flowchart elements
(representing subroutines, logical constructs or variables) to a
flowchart. He sets variables and subroutine parameters in a dialog box
associated with the variable or subroutine.


The subroutine library (that is, set of supplied flowchart "building
blocks") is quite rich, and well designed for its purpose. There are
no floating point operations, but at the granularity of a Lego robot,
three-place fixed point is more than adequate.


On a hunch, I discovered that the program is saved as a C-like text
file. Being a dinosaur, I find it easier to program the robots by
editing the text file.


One interesting difference: His programs never have lexical, syntactic
or semantic errors; the nature of the programming language he's using
precludes it. His programs rarely have logic bugs; if they do, he can
quickly find them and fix them.


My programs, on the other hand, have lexical, grammatical, syntactic,
semantic and logical errors at about the usual rate of a casual
programmer. There's no debugger, but I find debuggers (beyond stack
traces) a distraction anyway.


--
dhs spencer@panix.com


Post a followup to this message

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