Bob Proulx wrote:
> I keep waiting for Ruby to mature and get past these packaging
> problems. I hope that one day it will be as well packaged as Perl.
> But years have rolled by and still the problems continue.
As someone watching from the outside of the Ruby world (well, standing on
the edge,
David Christensen wrote:
> I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be
> purpose-built for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps I'm
> wanting, but I don't know how well it would work for everything else.
I'd say that Ruby itself is a reasonably general purpose lan
David Christensen wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >But Ruby suffers from being popular on platforms that lack a good
> >package manager. That hurts it terribly on Debian because so many
> >Ruby authors have written so much packaging code making it difficult
> >or perhaps impossible to create a well b
On 12/26/2011 02:54 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
But Ruby suffers from being popular on platforms that lack a good
package manager. That hurts it terribly on Debian because so many
Ruby authors have written so much packaging code making it difficult
or perhaps impossible to create a well behaved system
On 12/26/2011 01:12 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
That's Common Lisp. I think SBCL is the most popular free-software
implementation for the language. Emacs+Slime is the most popular
development environment.
I've installed all three packages and will play with them.
Usenet group comp.lang.lisp is
>> Which Debian Squeeze package do you recommend for "hello, world!" and STFW
>> tutorials?
>
> Not enough experience with it to make a recommendation, so I'll defer
> to Teemu on that. (I already had SBCL loaded, and I'm loading
> emacs-slime now to take a look.
Digging around, I find a nice surp
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:14 AM, David Christensen
wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 06:17 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> Did you say you'd looked at Ruby?
>
>
> I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be purpose-built
> for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps I'm wanting, but I
David Christensen wrote:
> Joel Rees wrote:
> > Did you say you'd looked at Ruby?
>
> I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be
> purpose-built for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps
> I'm wanting, but I don't know how well it would work for everything
> else.
I
On 12/25/2011 06:17 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Did you say you'd looked at Ruby?
I didn't say, but, yes, I have looked at Ruby. It seems to be
purpose-built for web stuff, which would help me with the web apps I'm
wanting, but I don't know how well it would work for everything else.
Well, lisp
* 2011-12-25T12:46:07-08:00 * David Christensen wrote:
> I'm looking for a language/ system that is general-purpose in scope
> and supports historical through recent paradigms: procedural,
> structured, modular, and OO.
> The applications I want to build include web content management
> systems a
On 12/26/11, David Christensen wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 09:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> On a more general note: for "advanced application" (as the subject
>> focuses on), and assuming that "advanced" translates to "complicated" -
>
> Yes, you caught me. I had a hard time deciding what word to us
David Christensen wrote:
On 12/25/2011 09:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
The type of applications I've been writing with Perl include system
utilities, text munging, data acquisition and control, and CGI
scripts. Most everything interfaces via the environment, STDIN,
STDOUT, STDERR, and/or fil
On 12/25/2011 09:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On a more general note: for "advanced application" (as the subject
focuses on), and assuming that "advanced" translates to "complicated" -
Yes, you caught me. I had a hard time deciding what word to use, and
settled on "advanced". To elaborate, I
Joel Rees wrote:
On 12/23/11, David Christensen wrote:
Someone wrote:
I am like you and wrote most of my C++ during the
early years of the language. I used the AT&T Cfront version 1.2
compiler for years. Always on Unix machines and never on Windows.
I have become disillusioned with the new
Yes, specifically at http://www.jsoftware.com/stable.htm,
though I'd recommend linking from "Getting Started" on
the Home page -- for overview, docs, labs
Joel Rees wrote:
On 12/25/11, PMA wrote:
Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
you might consider its successor and supers
Joel Rees wrote:
>(Sigh. My son hates programming. He likes mucking around with the
>source code for his customized Three Kingdoms MUD. Perl. I've tried to
>teach him C and it's like he thinks I'm trying to brainwash him for
>even mentioning it. Heh.)
A MUD written in Perl? Sounds like an…interes
On 12/25/11, PMA wrote:
> Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
> you might consider its successor and superset,
> *J* ( http://www.jsoftware.com/ ).
Is there a package for that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On 12/23/11, David Christensen wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>> I am like you and wrote most of my C++ during the
>> early years of the language. I used the AT&T Cfront version 1.2
>> compiler for years. Always on Unix machines and never on Windows.
>>
>> I have become disillusioned with the new C++ t
re: Perl
IMHO: The true power of perl comes from cpan. Nothing else comes close
in terms of a huge library of modules that self-assemble pretty easily.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Debian Forum comparing J to Brainf*
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:09:31 -0500
From: Marshall Lochbaum
To: Programming forum ,
peterarmstr...@aya.yale.edu
Well, I'm not tired of this stuff quite yet, so here goes:
Brainfuck and APL/J/K
On 2011-12-24 14:06:20 -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> As you can see, there's more than one way to do it (TIMTOWTDI). (And,
> probably more than I found.) There are even more ways that appear correct
> upon casual coding, but either generate errors/ warnings (lucky you) or have
> some subtle b
On 12/24/2011 08:50 AM, PMA wrote:
Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
you might consider its successor and superset,
*J* ( http://www.jsoftware.com/ ).
Interesting. :-)
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On 12/24/2011 02:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Now E, on the other hand, adds significant capabilities for secure
distributed computing based on the object-capability model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28programming_language%29
Interesting. But, Go has similar (?) concurrency features and l
On 12/24/2011 01:06 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
what about D ?
I'd really like to start using a UML power tool to help me with advanced
applications.
I've used Umbrello, but it hasn't been updated since June 2007 and its
Perl support is thin/ immature. (C++ and Java appear to be the best
sup
On 24/12/11 23:13, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Nah... D is just warmed over C.
may be more than a better C.
Now E, on the other hand, adds significant capabilities for secure distributed
computing based on the object-capability model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28programming_language%29
J
Original Message
Subject: Re: OT programming languages/ systems for advanced applications on
Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:23:46 -0500
From: tony baldwin
To: g62993...@rezozer.net
- Original Message -
From: Jerome BENOIT
Sent: 12/24/11 04:06 PM
To: debian-user
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:46:23PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
$ cat /etc/debian_version
6.0.3
$ python --version
Python 2.6.6
On 12/24/2011 10:51 AM, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
My system and Python versions are identical to yours.
Python 3.2.2 seems to be the current stable:
Nah... D is just warmed over C.
Now E, on the other hand, adds significant capabilities for secure
distributed computing based on the object-capability model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28programming_language%29
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
what about D ?
On 24/12/11 21:56, David Christensen wr
On 12/24/2011 08:54 AM, lina wrote:
Did not notice the difference between () and {} in tutorial.
Perl is the most complex and subtle programming language/ system I know
(attempt?). For example, see the following Perl script which
demonstrates syntax for accessing single and multiple (slice)
what about D ?
On 24/12/11 21:56, David Christensen wrote:
On 12/24/2011 06:44 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Lisp
Smalltalk
Erlang
Haskell
Caml/OCaml
APL - if you're crazy or want to be; or you could go all the way to
Brainfuck (http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck)
for that matter, Ada, if you're wr
On 12/24/2011 06:44 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Lisp
Smalltalk
Erlang
Haskell
Caml/OCaml
APL - if you're crazy or want to be; or you could go all the way to
Brainfuck (http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck)
for that matter, Ada, if you're writing mission-critical/safety-critical
systems
If you're real
On 2011-12-24 18:15:34 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> No doubt it's powerful, and you can do powerful things. The problem is that
> the syntax is so ideosyncratic, that I'm so relieved to get someting finally
> to do what I need, that I can't be bothered expressing it in a very concise
> way.
W
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:15:34PM +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 24/12/11 17:34, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >On 2011-12-24 17:06:38 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> >>Yep, that's PERL for you. Having taken over the maintenance of a large
> >>PERL project, I've come to the conclusion that it's
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:46:23PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 12/23/2011 07:57 AM, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
> >I noted your comments on Python, and while I haven't any
> >experience with the 2 -> 3 transition, I am inclined to prefer
> >it. In fact, almost all my work is now
On 24/12/11 17:34, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-12-24 17:06:38 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Yep, that's PERL for you. Having taken over the maintenance of a large
PERL project, I've come to the conclusion that it's IMHO the worst
programming language ever invented. Totally non-intuitive.
On 2011-12-24 17:06:38 +, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> Yep, that's PERL for you. Having taken over the maintenance of a large
> PERL project, I've come to the conclusion that it's IMHO the worst
> programming language ever invented. Totally non-intuitive.
I completely disagree. It's a very power
Should have gone to the list; sorry Lina:
Original Message
Subject: Re: OT programming languages/ systems for advanced applications
on Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:35:29 +
From: Tony van der Hoff
To: lina
On 24/12/11 15:43, lina wrote:
Tonight I am pretty free, so
Rather than APL itself -- value judgement aside --
you might consider its successor and superset,
*J* ( http://www.jsoftware.com/ ).
Miles Fidelman wrote:
David Christensen wrote:
Any other comments/ suggestions regarding programming languages/
systems for advanced applications on Linux?
Li
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-12-24 23:43:18 +0800, lina wrote:
>> Tonight I am pretty free, so started to read something about perl.
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>
>> print "Hello World! \n";
>>
>> $a = 3;
>>
>> print "$a \n";
>>
>> @food = {"apples", "pears", "eel
On 2011-12-24 23:43:18 +0800, lina wrote:
> Tonight I am pretty free, so started to read something about perl.
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> print "Hello World! \n";
>
> $a = 3;
>
> print "$a \n";
>
> @food = {"apples", "pears", "eels"};
I suppose you want:
@food = ("apples", "pears", "eels");
{
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> David Christensen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any other comments/ suggestions regarding programming languages/ systems
>> for advanced applications on Linux?
>>
> Lisp
> Smalltalk
> Erlang
> Haskell
> Caml/OCaml
> APL - if you're crazy or want to be; o
David Christensen wrote:
Any other comments/ suggestions regarding programming languages/
systems for advanced applications on Linux?
Lisp
Smalltalk
Erlang
Haskell
Caml/OCaml
APL - if you're crazy or want to be; or you could go all the way to
Brainfuck (http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck)
f
On 12/23/2011 07:57 AM, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
I noted your comments on Python, and while I haven't any
experience with the 2 -> 3 transition, I am inclined to prefer
it. In fact, almost all my work is now in that language. You
can see some examples at my page (below) in the SOFT
David:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:14:44PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> Someone wrote:
> >I am like you and wrote most of my C++ during the
> >early years of the language. I used the AT&T Cfront version 1.2
> >compiler for years. Always on Unix machines and never on Windows.
> >
> >I have be
44 matches
Mail list logo
