Is there a programming language...
-
CHILL (CCITT HIgh Level Language - CCITT was the old name of ITU-T) probably has the best developed strict type system of any industrial language. One of the features was the distinction between a SYNMODE and NEWMODE definitions (MODE is the CHILL term for type/class): A SYNMODE defines restrictions (like value subranges) or aggregates (like arrays) of existing types, but (within the restrictions) fully compatible with the base mode. A NEWMODE is similar, but defines an incompatible mode. So if you make new integer modes AppleCount and OrangeCount using SYNMODE, you can add apples and oranges. If you define dem using NEWMODE, the compiler won't allow you to add apples and oranges without an explicit cast. CHILL was developed to be the ITU standard for programming telephone switches, but the language design is just as general as, say, c or java. It never made any success in non-telephone environments (and even there it never took more than about half of the market), which is a pity: CHILL is one of the most thoroughly well-designed languages there is. But then again: The marketplace isn't known for always selecting the best designs... (I won't give c as an exapmple of that, that could hurt some people's feelings).
Member 7989122 wrote:
CHILL (CCITT HIgh Level Language - CCITT was the old name of ITU-T)
Interesting! Your description of restrictions, aggregates, base modes, and incompatibility reminds me of what I was reading about Ada. Marc
-
Well This c++ 11 trick is very powerfull, really! I prefer to do all the hard work from scratch (ok, have R #). I believe that this threshold "semantic" is outside the domain of a programming language (commonly, it is a "system domain" concept), because it is difficult to predict the particularities of a user-defined (conversion, comparison, integrity, serialization, etc.).
greydmar wrote:
I believe that this threshold "semantic" is outside the domain of a programming language (commonly, it is a "system domain" concept),
Yes, that's what makes it interesting to look at. :) Marc
-
...that works "easily" with semantic types? For example, I may have:
int age = 51;which completely loses the concept that 51 is an age (in years). What I want is something like:AgeInYears myAge = 51;and yet still be able to specify that I can perform, say, arithmetic operations on "myAge". For example, in C#, I could write:class AgeInYears
{
public int Value {get;set;}
}... implement operators on AgeInYears
But that gets messy real fast - every "semantic type" needs these operators, etc. Furthermore, the unit of measurement is still not handled very elegantly. So, as the question states, are there programming languages out there that are more expressive of semantic types? Marc
-
I'm sorry but this has to be amongst the most pointless discursions this forum has ever seen!
Quote:
int age = 51;
A perfect encapsulation of an immutable truth ... age is just a number! What more could you possibly need?
Member 9082365 wrote:
A perfect encapsulation of an immutable truth ... age is just a number! What more could you possibly need?
OK, what's 34 (besides "just a number") ? Marc
-
Member 9082365 wrote:
A perfect encapsulation of an immutable truth ... age is just a number! What more could you possibly need?
OK, what's 34 (besides "just a number") ? Marc
Unless you're a thoroughgoing Pythagorean that question is no more meaningful than 'how is 34?' or 'why is 34?' It is just a number and as we all know (post pi) number doesn't exist in any real sense at all. As written it is an arbitrary typographical representation of a concept within an equally arbitrary logical system that bears no relation other than by extrapolation with what is, was or will be. It is an abstraction. A useful abstraction but an abstraction nonetheless. And doubly so once you bring time into it! Contrary to popular opinion even if we were born simultaneously our real ages are almost certainly different! That's relativity for you!
-
I hate myself for typing this:
namespace TestApp1
{
using AgeInYears = System.Int32;class Program { static void Main(string\[\] args) { AgeInYears myAge = 10; AgeInYears oldAge = 50; AgeInYears timeUntilOldAge = oldAge - myAge; } }}
Yes, that's perfectly legal C# code. Its technically an int, works the same way that #define does in c++ to replace types. It only works in single code files though.
You should rewrite it that way.
namespace TestApp1
{
using AgeInYears = System.Int32;class Program { static void Main(string\[\] args) { AgeInYears myAge = 10; // or whatever AgeInYears timeUntilOldAge = 10; AgeInYears oldAge = myAge + timeUntilOldAge; }}
}So you are forever young. :)
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
-
Odd, mine does, VS2013 is what I tried that in. When I typed String.Compare( then hit the down arrow to select one of the overloads that had an int, it showed AgeInYears instead of int.
Interesting; a little investigation shows that a ReSharper trial version (Build 8.1.23.546) is what is making the difference in what shows up in the Intellisense pop-up, where ints are expected. bill
If you seek to aid everyone that suffers in the galaxy, you will only weaken yourself … and weaken them. It is the internal struggles, when fought and won on their own, that yield the strongest rewards… If you care for others, then dispense with pity and sacrifice and recognize the value in letting them fight their own battles." Darth Traya
-
Unless you're a thoroughgoing Pythagorean that question is no more meaningful than 'how is 34?' or 'why is 34?' It is just a number and as we all know (post pi) number doesn't exist in any real sense at all. As written it is an arbitrary typographical representation of a concept within an equally arbitrary logical system that bears no relation other than by extrapolation with what is, was or will be. It is an abstraction. A useful abstraction but an abstraction nonetheless. And doubly so once you bring time into it! Contrary to popular opinion even if we were born simultaneously our real ages are almost certainly different! That's relativity for you!
Actually, most people would consider that numbers are as real as most human concepts, if not more so due to their universal applicability. By your logic trees don't exist because "tree" is purely a label we've conjuured up to describe the commonality of all trees. Colours do not exist because "colour" is a word we use to describe colours of all objects. So if anything exists then numbers are as real as anything else - just because they have no physical form does not render then nonexistant. If you reject naming things, then you reject language and symbolic systems as a means of communicating. Good luck with that. I'd suggest Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations for a more thorough consideration of this area. More interesting questions he tackles are of the form "what is a game" - now that really is hard to tie down.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
...that works "easily" with semantic types? For example, I may have:
int age = 51;which completely loses the concept that 51 is an age (in years). What I want is something like:AgeInYears myAge = 51;and yet still be able to specify that I can perform, say, arithmetic operations on "myAge". For example, in C#, I could write:class AgeInYears
{
public int Value {get;set;}
}... implement operators on AgeInYears
But that gets messy real fast - every "semantic type" needs these operators, etc. Furthermore, the unit of measurement is still not handled very elegantly. So, as the question states, are there programming languages out there that are more expressive of semantic types? Marc
-
Member 10199043 wrote:
PROLOG
Hmmm. Prolog is an untyped language. Attempts to introduce types date back to the 1980s,[42][43] and as of 2008 there are still attempts to extend Prolog with types.[44] Type information is useful not only for type safety but also for reasoning about Prolog programs. Marc
-
Fascinating - I was just reading the Python example below and then looked at your Haskell example. Thanks! Also, I appreciate the links. Marc
Don't know if your familiar with Haskell at all, but its a wonderful thing. One day I'll undwerstand it well enough to use on a real world project. The example given is relatively simple. I particularly like being able to derive properties (type classes) like Ord (a bit like comparable), Num (numeric), Eq (equatable) and Show (convertible to string) automatically for many types. Be aware that "type classes" are not classes in an OO sense at all. More like interfaces. Even more like "concepts" in C++ (when they finally make it into the language). I think I've learned more from learning Haskell than any language since I learned Smalltalk.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
Don't know if your familiar with Haskell at all, but its a wonderful thing. One day I'll undwerstand it well enough to use on a real world project. The example given is relatively simple. I particularly like being able to derive properties (type classes) like Ord (a bit like comparable), Num (numeric), Eq (equatable) and Show (convertible to string) automatically for many types. Be aware that "type classes" are not classes in an OO sense at all. More like interfaces. Even more like "concepts" in C++ (when they finally make it into the language). I think I've learned more from learning Haskell than any language since I learned Smalltalk.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
Rob Grainger wrote:
Don't know if your familiar with Haskell at all, but its a wonderful thing.
Nope, but I've been reading up on it since your previous post!
Rob Grainger wrote:
I think I've learned more from learning Haskell than any language since I learned Smalltalk.
Interestingly, I learned more about the principles of programming from this book[^] than I ever have from any actual comp-sci book. I kid you not - biology and programming have a lot in common. Marc
-
Actually, most people would consider that numbers are as real as most human concepts, if not more so due to their universal applicability. By your logic trees don't exist because "tree" is purely a label we've conjuured up to describe the commonality of all trees. Colours do not exist because "colour" is a word we use to describe colours of all objects. So if anything exists then numbers are as real as anything else - just because they have no physical form does not render then nonexistant. If you reject naming things, then you reject language and symbolic systems as a means of communicating. Good luck with that. I'd suggest Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations for a more thorough consideration of this area. More interesting questions he tackles are of the form "what is a game" - now that really is hard to tie down.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
But trees don't exist and 'tree' is indeed a label we've conjured up not to describe the commonality of certain plant species but to generalise sufficiently to deal with the fact that there is very little commonality in reality but life is way too short to demand strict accuracy in language. I'm surprised that you find anything to the contrary in Wittgenstein (although I appreciate that interpreting Wittgenstein depends very much on what mood he was in at the time of writing!) And where do I reject symbolic systems and naming? I simply accept Kant's logic that we never do and never can know what is really there. In other words the fact that you can name something or fit it perfectly into a logical system does not make it an ontological necessity. The ability to speak of 'number' or 'trees' and use those concepts in the most complicated yet logical manner does not mean that number or tree actually exist. Even the most rigorous of ontological 'proofs' will always fall prey to the fact that they are a product of the logical system in which they operate and therefore require an unjustifiable acceptance of that system. Of course, for the conduct of everyday life I bandy terms like tree and 34 about without the slightest embarrassment. It keeps one out of mental health institutions for starters! But that doesn't require commitment to the notion that they connotate anything real. If Hume could play billiards and at the same time believe that there was no such thing as cause and effect a little duality of thinking can't do any harm!
-
Rob Grainger wrote:
Don't know if your familiar with Haskell at all, but its a wonderful thing.
Nope, but I've been reading up on it since your previous post!
Rob Grainger wrote:
I think I've learned more from learning Haskell than any language since I learned Smalltalk.
Interestingly, I learned more about the principles of programming from this book[^] than I ever have from any actual comp-sci book. I kid you not - biology and programming have a lot in common. Marc
I am not surprised. Alan Kay has stated that biology heavily influenced the invention of OOP. I think he touches on that in This interview[^]
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
...that works "easily" with semantic types? For example, I may have:
int age = 51;which completely loses the concept that 51 is an age (in years). What I want is something like:AgeInYears myAge = 51;and yet still be able to specify that I can perform, say, arithmetic operations on "myAge". For example, in C#, I could write:class AgeInYears
{
public int Value {get;set;}
}... implement operators on AgeInYears
But that gets messy real fast - every "semantic type" needs these operators, etc. Furthermore, the unit of measurement is still not handled very elegantly. So, as the question states, are there programming languages out there that are more expressive of semantic types? Marc
You could use C/C++ typedef int AgeInYears; AgeInYears myAge = 51; No need to define operators etc. You could even use Ada type AgeInYears is new Integer; type AgeInMonths is new Integer; myAge: AgeInYears; yourAge: AgeInMonths; Ada won't let you type myAge := yourAge / 12; unless you cast it.
-
...that works "easily" with semantic types? For example, I may have:
int age = 51;which completely loses the concept that 51 is an age (in years). What I want is something like:AgeInYears myAge = 51;and yet still be able to specify that I can perform, say, arithmetic operations on "myAge". For example, in C#, I could write:class AgeInYears
{
public int Value {get;set;}
}... implement operators on AgeInYears
But that gets messy real fast - every "semantic type" needs these operators, etc. Furthermore, the unit of measurement is still not handled very elegantly. So, as the question states, are there programming languages out there that are more expressive of semantic types? Marc
An interesting language for doing this type of thing is Julia (http://julialang.org/[^]). In Julia you can A) Use typedefs to indicate that AgeInYears is a typedef for Int or B) Make a new type AgeInYears that is a subtype of Integer and implement a converter function (these are a standard Julia concept) from Int to AgeInYears so that age::AgeInYears = 5 will resolve correctly.
-
greydmar wrote:
I believe that this threshold "semantic" is outside the domain of a programming language (commonly, it is a "system domain" concept),
Yes, that's what makes it interesting to look at. :) Marc
Well, lets consider the following task: Imagine the same issue when your development includes (for example) some SQL tables with some (or a lot of) semantic fields (unit of measure, complex number, currency, etc.) and you decides (of course, you are a "programer"!! ;P) performs some calculations using SQL dialects (T-SQL; stored procedures, udf, package, PL/SQL)... So, it's a kind of art do ordnary operations (conversion, arithmetics) without "semantic types", no?
-
Stroustrup has written somewhere on implementing SI measures in C++ using user-defined literals and simple classes. That would work well, but should really be part of the standard library.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
I am not surprised. Alan Kay has stated that biology heavily influenced the invention of OOP. I think he touches on that in This interview[^]
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
Rob Grainger wrote:
Alan Kay has stated that biology heavily influenced the invention of OOP
Ancient Greeks established paradigm of capture world events into models (abstract concepts schemes) without cares with empirical verification... Biology and statistics with your main concepts (store, compare, infers!) had heavily influenced since Medicine up to Mechanical sciences working from a diferent perspective: World evidences first (facts, events, observations). Model concepts later. An interesting book about this, available only in portuguese (BEHIND THE SCENES OF SCIENCE - Resistances Scientists to Scientific Innovation) it's a very enlightening
-
An interesting language for doing this type of thing is Julia (http://julialang.org/[^]). In Julia you can A) Use typedefs to indicate that AgeInYears is a typedef for Int or B) Make a new type AgeInYears that is a subtype of Integer and implement a converter function (these are a standard Julia concept) from Int to AgeInYears so that age::AgeInYears = 5 will resolve correctly.
aschmahmann wrote:
An interesting language for doing this type of thing is Julia (http://julialang.org/[^]).
Reading the docs, that looks very very interesting! Thank you for pointing out Julia! Marc