Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
23 Sep 2003 13:28:34 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language albertodemichelis@hotmail.com (2003-09-09)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language visionary25@hotmail.com (Vis Mike) (2003-09-14)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language me@here.there.com (Peter Ashford) (2003-09-22)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language emonk@slingshot.co.nz (Corey Murtagh) (2003-09-22)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-09-23)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-09-23)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language vbdis@aol.com (2003-09-27)
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language visionary25@hotmail.com (Vis Mike) (2003-09-27)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.games.development.programming.misc
Followup-To: poster
Date: 23 Sep 2003 13:28:34 -0400
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 03-09-048 03-09-053 03-09-065
Keywords: design, interpreter
Posted-Date: 23 Sep 2003 13:28:34 EDT

Peter Ashford <me@here.there.com> wrote:
>> Looks a bit like NewtonScript / JavaScript. I have to ask why you chose C
>> style loops instead of something like:
>>
>> for i in 1..10 { } or something similar. C style loops are so cryptic.
>
>If you think of how many C, C++ and Java programmers are out there,
>you'll come to realise that quite a few people don't find them crypitc
>at all.


If you follow the discussions on the C reflector about precisely what
they permit, and precisely what the obscurer uses really do, you would
use a stronger word than "cryptic".


And that is even before you get onto the problems of which forms of
them will be optimised by compilers, and how. There is a consensus
that the forms of C for-loop that correspond to Fortran, Algol 60 or
Pascal do-loops are 'expected', but beyond that lie dragons.




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Post a followup to this message

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