Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.ruby > #1942 > unrolled thread

[OT] functional paradigm taking over

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.ruby

Contents

  [OT] functional paradigm taking over Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-30 02:29 -0500
    Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-03-30 04:38 -0500
      Re: Lambda Shambda Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-30 10:19 -0500
        Re: Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-03-30 12:27 -0500
        Re: Lambda Shambda 7stud -- <bbxx789_05ss@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-30 20:49 -0500
        Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-30 22:30 -0500
          Re: Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-03-31 05:08 -0500
            Re: Lambda Shambda Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-02 15:07 -0500
              Re: Lambda Shambda Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-03 00:29 -0500
                Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 02:48 -0500
                  Re: Lambda Shambda Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 12:58 +0200
                    Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 06:50 -0500
                      Re: Lambda Shambda Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 13:59 -0500
                        Re: Lambda Shambda Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-03 15:06 -0500
                          Re: Lambda Shambda Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:56 -0500
                  Re: Lambda Shambda Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-03 07:17 -0500
                    Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 07:47 -0500
                      Why should I be a programmer, to program? Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-03 13:44 -0500
                        Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 14:45 -0500
                          Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-03 15:58 -0500
                        Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:21 -0500
                          Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? serialhex <serialhex@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:34 -0500
                            Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? - OT Chris <chris@s-4-u.net> - 2011-04-03 15:53 -0500
                            Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 16:01 -0500
                              Re: Why should I be a programmer, to program? - OT Chris <chris@s-4-u.net> - 2011-04-03 16:42 -0500
                      Re: Lambda Shambda Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-04 04:23 -0500
                        Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 04:52 -0500
                          Re: Lambda Shambda Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 06:19 -0500
                  Re: Lambda Shambda Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> - 2011-04-03 08:13 -0500
                    Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 00:55 -0500
                      Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 10:16 -0500
                  Re: Lambda Shambda Iain Barnett <iainspeed@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 15:50 -0500
                Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-03 15:07 -0500
            Re: Lambda Shambda Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-03 06:05 -0500
          Re: Lambda Shambda Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-03-31 13:56 -0500
    Re: [OT] functional paradigm taking over Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:46 -0500
    Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-04 04:05 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 04:21 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 04:25 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-04-04 04:28 -0500
        Re: functional paradigm taking over Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 06:49 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 05:00 -0500
        Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 05:15 -0500
          Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-04 05:18 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-04 06:31 -0500
        Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 07:17 -0500
          Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 07:29 -0500
            Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-04 10:42 -0500
              Re: functional paradigm taking over Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> - 2011-04-04 12:43 -0500
              Re: functional paradigm taking over Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 11:59 -0500
                Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 01:18 -0500
                  Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 01:22 -0500
                    Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 02:09 -0500
                  Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 02:11 -0500
                    Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 02:47 -0500
                      Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:40 -0500
                      Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 00:53 -0500
                        Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 01:02 -0500
                          Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 01:38 -0500
                            Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 01:46 -0500
                            Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 02:46 -0500
                            Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-13 03:52 -0500
                              Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 09:59 -0500
                                Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-13 10:16 -0500
                                  Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 11:18 -0500
                                    Re: functional paradigm taking over serialhex <serialhex@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 14:41 -0500
                                      Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:34 -0500
                                Re: functional paradigm taking over Peter Hickman <peterhickman386@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-13 10:17 -0500
                            Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 18:44 -0500
                              Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 00:32 -0500
                              Re: functional paradigm taking over Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> - 2011-04-14 05:06 -0500
                                Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-15 01:25 -0500
        Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 07:41 -0500
          Re: functional paradigm taking over Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> - 2011-04-04 07:56 -0500
          Re: functional paradigm taking over Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-04-05 03:58 -0500
            Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-05 04:12 -0500
              Re: functional paradigm taking over Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net> - 2011-04-05 16:57 -0500
        Re: functional paradigm taking over Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-07 10:51 -0500
          Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:42 -0500
            Re: functional paradigm taking over Alex Stahl <astahl@hi5.com> - 2011-04-07 20:26 -0500
          Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-07 22:14 -0500
            Re: functional paradigm taking over Johnny Morrice <spoon@killersmurf.com> - 2011-04-08 06:10 -0500
            Re: functional paradigm taking over Everett L Williams II <rett@classicnet.net> - 2011-04-08 13:58 -0500
    Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-08 16:04 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 19:12 -0500
    Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-12 07:31 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:22 -0500
    Re: functional paradigm taking over Gregory Vella <gregory_vella@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-13 14:49 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Kevin <darkintent@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:59 -0500
    Re: functional paradigm taking over Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> - 2011-04-14 02:28 -0500
      Re: functional paradigm taking over Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-14 03:29 -0500
        Re: functional paradigm taking over Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 05:01 -0500

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#2498 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

Chad Perrin wrote
>
>  you found a 4GL very useful within its narrow domain of
> intended applicability

Chad , you have a rather prejudiced view of languages that don't look
like what you're used to.

For a few decades of my career, 4GLs paid the mortgage for me. I did a
North Sea Oil system in ADS/On-line. Focus (with a touch of Rexx) ran
the second biggest direct insurer in the UK for a while. It was the most
efficient and fast-moving corporate IT department I've ever worked in.
Focus provided ETL and data warehousing for the biggest card aquirer in
the UK - hundreds of million of transactions per month. It managed loans
of hundreds of millions to the biggest corporations in the World. What
have your precious 'proper' programming languages done?

I cut my teeth in IT before the advent of the Object-oriented Era.
Everyone was excited when OO arrived. However what I often see from
people taught OO from the cradle is a kind of religiousity, arrogance,
intolerance - this is is the only true path to righteousness; every
thing else should be burned. It's not really as black and white as that.
You need to live-and-let-live.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2523 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

Your argument stinks.  You're saying that Excel is a programming
language, because *you* made money using similar tools.

My sister is a dentist.  She makes lots of money.  Therefore, by
your logic, dental surgery constitutes a programming language. WTF?!

Just because your particular career didn't involve much proper
programming doesn't change the fact that teeth aren't algorithms, Excel
is a spreadsheet application, that many careers actually do!

I think the guys who wrote Excel program for a living too.

It's as if you're trying to convince people on this list that they would
be better giving up their jobs, giving up their study and going to work
in an insurance broking making excel spreadsheets.

Well thanks for the offer of employment advice, but it's not what I
want to do.

Thanks
Johnny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2551 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

*Mike,

As attractive a tool as Ruby is, with the attitudes being evince here, I 
think that I will take my playtoys elsewhere. Ruby has some of the best 
features of a whole group of current languages, but it is not well 
standardized and it does not offer the level of leverage offered by even 
the fairly mediocre 4GL's. Ruby is just a free version of some things 
that would otherwise cost money, and it has not even achieved the level 
of acceptance of some of the other free tools. Unfortunately, the best 
of languages that I have seen out there are commercial and almost or 
completely proprietary. That would be Eiffel and MainSAIL. Both are far 
more powerful than Ruby, and both offer better diagnostic facilities as 
well as a far tighter development cycle. I think that until I have some 
project that just cries out for some facility only available in Ruby 
(and I cannot imagine what that might be), I will drop out of this 
forum. You might consider just how important Ruby is to you with this 
set of attitudes being displayed.

Everett L.(Rett) Williams II
*

Mike Stephens wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote
>    
>>   you found a 4GL very useful within its narrow domain of
>> intended applicability
>>      
> Chad , you have a rather prejudiced view of languages that don't look
> like what you're used to.
>
> For a few decades of my career, 4GLs paid the mortgage for me. I did a
> North Sea Oil system in ADS/On-line. Focus (with a touch of Rexx) ran
> the second biggest direct insurer in the UK for a while. It was the most
> efficient and fast-moving corporate IT department I've ever worked in.
> Focus provided ETL and data warehousing for the biggest card aquirer in
> the UK - hundreds of million of transactions per month. It managed loans
> of hundreds of millions to the biggest corporations in the World. What
> have your precious 'proper' programming languages done?
>
> I cut my teeth in IT before the advent of the Object-oriented Era.
> Everyone was excited when OO arrived. However what I often see from
> people taught OO from the cradle is a kind of religiousity, arrogance,
> intolerance - this is is the only true path to righteousness; every
> thing else should be burned. It's not really as black and white as that.
> You need to live-and-let-live.
>
>    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2557 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

Everett

Generally speaking it's a calm, friendly, rational community, so don't
leave Ruby behind just because of tbis thread.

I've just learnt that with strangers - don't get into discussions about
sex, religion, politics or programming languages :)

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2561 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> wrote:

> I've just learnt that with strangers - don't get into discussions about
> sex, religion, politics or programming languages :)
>
>
Or spreadsheets ;)~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2677 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

What we've seen here is some people - but not all - have a fixed frame
of reference about what qualifies as a language.

If you are religious the terms 'good' and 'evil' have a very clear and
self-evident meaning. If you are an atheist they seem to be two sets of
rather similar things that appear to be rather arbitrary. The Christian
Old Testament said 'evil' was marrying people from other ethnic groups,
whereas killing them and their animals was 'good'. The Christian New
Testament changed those set memberships a bit.

Ruby is a very powerful language that also has the merit of being able
to express complexity in an elegant way. However if you don't
particularly need all that power then you shouldn't write off languages
which do some things easily but become contorted when you try and
replicate complex Ruby capabilities.

'Domain Specific Language' is a perjorative term. It's just saying I
can't conveniently do certain things I'm used to doing in the way I
prefer. To say that matters, you need to show that typical domains
definitely require such capabilities. My point earlier was not that I
was a superior being (I don't know where that came from) but that from
my experience in the oil, banking, insurance, corflakes and fragances
business, most programming is using quite basic features. OK, that might
not extend to nuclear fission reactors, but let's keep a sense of
proportion here.

There certainly is an argument that functional languages are more easily
mapped to multi-core computers. If I buy one of those S-word platforms,
I get sophisticated parallel processing built in for free. For Ruby, I
would have to carefully program that as Ruby has no general purpose
model/vocabulary/semantics for conveying or deducing dependancies.

Or has it?

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2693 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
>
>> 'Domain Specific Language' is a perjorative term.
>
> No -- it's a descriptive term.  A pejorative term would be something like
> "blub language".  The term "domain specific language" describes a
> narrower focus, which makes it more suitable to certain tasks than a
> domain nonspecific language, and less suitable to other tasks.
>
> You act as though "domain specific" is a synonym for "crippled", but
> that's not the case at all.

To elaborate:

I'm a heavy user of TADS 3 these days, which stands for "Text
Adventure Development System".

It has a heavily C influenced syntax, is Turing complete, and is
compiled into bytecode, but I wouldn't dream of using it to script
regular tasks with it, or write a spreadsheet in it. It's standard
library is heavily geared towards text adventures (what a surprise),
and has next to no functions to call up files, since the IF
interpreter takes care of loading and saving game state.

It has syntax features and objects that make writing interactive
fiction a breeze, however.

For example:

aRoom: Room 'room noun' 'room name'
  "This is a room. "
;

+desk: Table 'table noun' 'table name'
  "A table with four legs. "
;

++paper: Readable, Thing 'readable noun' 'readable name'
  "A piece of paper. "
  readDesc = "You read what's written on the piece of paper. "
;

Each plus is an instance of "object nesting": The piece of paper is on
a table, in a room, and the player can react to the things in the room
by using <verb> <noun> constructs.

If I were to use Ruby for this (and I could), I'd still be writing a
text parser, instead of doing what I want to do.

TL;DR: DSLs remove a lot of yak shaving for a given task, but
introduce a lot of it when moving outside of the DSL's domain.

It's jargon vs general language: Makes communicating certain ideas
easier to those in the know, than using a general purpose language.

-- 
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2782 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

Phillip makes the assertion that Excel is not Turing-complete,
beginning the flame war:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/27cebe32ec304c83

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field would know that Excel is
Turing-complete because it can model Turing-complete cellular automata
(for instance the Game of Life). Also see Wolfram's NKS (though
Wolfram has become crank-like in other respects, he certainly knows CA).

History shows that Phillip will persist despite being factually
disputed. No doubt he will attempt to twist his way out of this one.
See him get refuted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/msg/abb343631960cdad

Note his bizarre cockiness despite being totally wrong:
http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/msg/da8cbb09529977d1

In order to understand who you're dealing with here, read Philip's
messages in that thread regarding IEEE infinity.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2788 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Thank you for that.  I personally find language construction interesting.
 It's a shame that people are just plugging their ears in this particular
topic.  Though I think part of the problem is this topic is that some people
seem to think that a program is not a system.  The problem with that idea is
what do you say when you start talking about languages built expressly for
designing what we are used to calling programming languages.  Is the thing
output by an Antlr grammar spec a single unit that is not expressive, or is
it a system that is expressive?  If one considers all programs systems that
express a subset of human thoughts the definitions of what these things are
remains consistent even at the level of language design.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Gregory Vella <gregory_vella@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Phillip makes the assertion that Excel is not Turing-complete,
> beginning the flame war:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/27cebe32ec304c83
>
> Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field would know that Excel is
> Turing-complete because it can model Turing-complete cellular automata
> (for instance the Game of Life). Also see Wolfram's NKS (though
> Wolfram has become crank-like in other respects, he certainly knows CA).
>
> History shows that Phillip will persist despite being factually
> disputed. No doubt he will attempt to twist his way out of this one.
> See him get refuted here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/msg/abb343631960cdad
>
> Note his bizarre cockiness despite being totally wrong:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/msg/da8cbb09529977d1
>
> In order to understand who you're dealing with here, read Philip's
> messages in that thread regarding IEEE infinity.
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2829 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

Longest post for at least a year.

It would appear people are comfortable with discussing details but once 
you stray into challenging their worldviews, you see quite different 
behaviour patterns.

A reminder of why we have to have our bags searched at the airport.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2832 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> wrote:
> Longest post for at least a year.
>
> It would appear people are comfortable with discussing details but once
> you stray into challenging their worldviews, you see quite different
> behaviour patterns.
>
> A reminder of why we have to have our bags searched at the airport.

Nicely put.  As the originator of this thread I am sorry where all
this went.  My intent was to hear how other people view the tendency
to include functional features in other programming languages or
create hybrids from the start.  Or hear whether they disagree that
such a tendency exists.

Unfortunately I am myself guilty of following that "Excel is (not) a
(functional) language" branch of the discussion that you lured us
into. :-)  That is an interesting topic in itself but not what I had
in mind originally.

If there's still anybody out there who wishes to comment along the
original line of thought, please let's hear it.

Kind regards

robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2837 — Re: functional paradigm taking over

[Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> wrote:
> > Longest post for at least a year.
> >
> > It would appear people are comfortable with discussing details but once
> > you stray into challenging their worldviews, you see quite different
> > behaviour patterns.
> >
> > A reminder of why we have to have our bags searched at the airport.
>
> Nicely put.
>
>
IDK, likening your adversaries to terrorists seems a bit extreme to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.ruby

csiph-web