One of the things that has shocked me about Turing is that it is interpreted and then compiled as C++.
Seeing plaintext comments about Visual Studio inside the Turing IDE file is just hilarious
Computer Science Canada What's the most shocking thing about language X? |
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | What's the most shocking thing about language X? |
So, when you learned a new programming language, what were the things that most shocked you about it? |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
One of the things that has shocked me about Turing is that it is interpreted and then compiled as C++. Seeing plaintext comments about Visual Studio inside the Turing IDE file is just hilarious |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Scheme. The functional syntax. Perl. Perl. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
J. The gibberish. (i gave up learning it) |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I sat down and spent a good 8 hours one day trying to learn Brainfuck. It's well named, to say the least. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ruby. Chunky bacon.  |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The complicated IO and output commands of Java compared to Turing and C++ Edit: woot!! Edit button atlast. By the ways, wtd you didnt say anything.. :S |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Basic: There are actually pointers if you dig deep enough  |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MysticVegeta: The edit button has always been there in the general programming section, just not in any 'help' section. Cornflake: Really?
Surprising... Hmm... Let's start off simple. JavaScript - OOP! |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's not a whole lot that still surprises me. 
That Micrsoft is planning to incorporate anonymous functions, comprehensions and type inferencing in C# 3.0 is a bit of a surprise, though. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You want suprising? Write a 4DL program that actually compiles: http://www.cliff.biffle.org/esoterica/4dl.html 4DL turns programming into not only a visual task, but an exercise in visualizing higher-order dimensional spaces--which everyone does in their free time, right? |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds a bit like a four dimensional 'Funge. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Instant job security" -- watch out for those theoretical physicists.. |
|
| Author: | bugzpodder [ Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: There's not a whole lot that still surprises me.
That Micrsoft is planning to incorporate anonymous functions, comprehensions and type inferencing in C# 3.0 is a bit of a surprise, though. I've being reading up on some .net stuff (JIT, IL, CLR), and the architecture is in itself quiet impressive to me. More impressive than, say Java, IMHO. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's not too horrendous. Keep in mind, though, that with mainstream languages you're generally seeing something about 20 years behind the mainstream. Talk to old Lisp or Smalltalk programmers and they will not seem nearly so impressed. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
CLR technology is new though. Well in Java' its a bit different. Languages built for the VM run on the VM and are compatible with the Java Lang. You get the same effect. But there's one tiny problem. Only a small number of languages (in terms of "kinds" not in terms of quantity) can be compatible with the JAva lang.. so you don't have many choices.. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You can use any exotic programming language you wish with the JVM, as long as you limit yourself to features provided by the Java programming language. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm really shocked at how quickly I'm coming to enjoy Io, and for that matter, how well it's been received here. I've previously found O'Caml the best balance I'd yet found for educational purposes, but Io may supplant it in that regard. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yea, tell me about it. And Io has a cleaner syntax too. Either way, i found some other "cool and interesting" languages: Slate an improvement over smalltalk (a prototype based programming language sporting Multiple Dispatch Methods.. interesting stuff) , and Factor a clean concatenative programming language (strange but cool syntax). |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, with O'Caml it was never really about the syntax, though I do think it's reasonably straightforward. It was about being able to teach in a very linear manner, with the simple stuff not requiring use of advanced language features. This is my primary problem with something like Java or even Ruby as a teaching language. OOP in these languages brings a fair amount of complexity, and you can't do much of anything without objects. Io is sort of the same way, but it's so simple I don't think that's much of a hindrance. |
|