Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.misc > #11536
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.misc |
| Subject | Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? |
| Date | 2025-11-06 08:29 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10ehip3$vcmo$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <10eb274$34udf$1@dont-email.me> <10eb70g$36c03$1@dont-email.me> <10ecraf$3knbr$1@dont-email.me> <10efc7p$bjmh$1@dont-email.me> <10efmtu$ee0n$2@dont-email.me> |
On 05.11.2025 15:28, bart wrote:
> On 05/11/2025 11:25, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 04.11.2025 13:24, bart wrote:
>
>>> This is simply wrong. If a language (not A68, but using its syntax)
>>> REQUIRES you to write this:
>>>
>>> [n]INT a = (x1, x2, x3, .... xn)
>>>
>>> That is, the 'n' has to exactly match the count of items, then that is
>>> very poor. There are several issues
>>
>> Then just don't write it (that 'n') (in Algol 68)
>>
>> [] INT a = (x1, x2, x3, ..., xn)
>
> You seem to have missed a couple of things:
>
> (1) This is not about Algol68
No, I read what you wrote. But since your original complaints were
in principal form about Algol 68 I see no problem discussing your
problems based on that paragon, instead of mixing argumentation.
(I'm curious why you switched the goalpost, in the first place.
My suspicion was that you just said that to not be confronted with
the sensible support in and language definition of Algol 68.)
> (2) This is specifically where a language needs those bounds up-front
You don't "need" bounds. - That actually depends on the language!
>
> Becase you stated there you saw no problem in discovering and having to
> include those bounds.
That still holds.
>
> Since I've given some examples of where that would be awkward or
> impossible, and haven't convinced you, I won't bother any further.
(You regularly ignore counter-arguments that prove you wrong.)
>
>>> It could been read from an external file.
>>
>> Then you would not have the static initializer-lists that were part
>> of all examples you depicted. (You seem to be switching goalposts.)
>>
>>> That could have been generated from a process which is
>>> part of a build-script (LD'O's suggestion), then you will not know what
>>> it will be before you start to build.
>>
>> Yes. - And I'm thinking about what I'd do, say, in "C" (or Algol 68).
>> Since we have no flexible and dynamically extensible constructs here
>> we need some more clever approach. If data comes from outside context
>> you need means to provide that information; the generator might count
>> and provide the information with the data he generates, or, if not,
>> an additional preprocessing (like wc -w) could be inserted to provide
>> the necessary information, or read in the data (as it comes, as text)
>> into a string and have the application count the semantic elements
>> before they get stored in the typed array.
>>
>> How would you, in "C" (or Algol 68), get information of dynamic size
>> read into static structures? - realloc() on each element? realloc()
>> on chunks of data? Fixed size arrays of abnormal length 'int a[10^8]'
>> (that may still fail in yet more pathological cases)?
>
> I don't understand what you're saying. An example in C might look like
> this:
>
> char data[] = {
> #include "file1" // both contain comma-delimited sequences
> #include "file2"
> };
>
> This would be static data object. It is vastly more convenient to have
> those bounds unspecified.
>
> I expect we're talking at cross-purposes.
Yes, probably.
(The #include hacks you've shown above would not be an instance of
reliable software design in my book. YMMV. And irrelevant for the
Algol 68 case and your original complaints on that.)
>
>>>
>>> There some instances where you do need a count (for example it has to
>>> match something else in the program) so you can /optionally/ supply it,
>>> and the compiler can report a mismatch if the item count is wrong.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, things can get very tedious if you have to get ? exactly
>>> right here:
>>>
>>> char message[?] = "<some long string literal>";
>>
>> In Algol 68, here as well, there's no need to provide the length
>>
>> [] CHAR message = "<some long string literal>"
>
> So, why wouldn't you put the length here anyway?
(As I demonstrated, I wouldn't use an array but a string type; in
Algol 68 or in any other language - most languages support strings.)
> You keep saying it's no
> problem at all as you always know the length!
There's a couple [meta-]problems here; you obviously don't know (in
the sense of understanding") the language, and generally ignore the
explanations.
Your original complaints have been about (mind the ':=')
[] INT var := ( ... );
needing a size, and I explained why that is the case and showed the
many problems and deficiencies your thinking had here, and I showed
you and explained to you the appropriate and sensible definition.
>
> Or maybe in this case it /is/ a little too much work (Unicode plus
> character encoding make the length ambiguous anyway).
(What I had explained to you had nothing to do with Unicode.)
>
>>
>> But your example leaves me (yet again) with the impression that you are
>> just desperately seeking some detail, some feature, that Algol 68 does
>> not support, just to make the point that Algol 68 would be inferior to
>> this or that language. With a bit open-mindedness you can easily see -
>> despite Algol 68 being an almost dead dinosaur - how clever its design
>> and how powerful its features are, how readable the code and reliable.
>
> It is disappointing, that a language that blew my mind when I first
> encountered it (remember I'd mostly used Fortran!) is now revealed to be
> so lacking.
>
> It is ten times as complicated as it needs to be for use for everyday
> tasks.
It's one of the most coherent languages I've seen over the past
decades. It has an orthogonal design. That and other things makes
it _easy_ to understand and use, *not* complex. There's many much
more *primitive* (widely used) languages that *are* complex, though.
Supported by the "problems" you report here and obviously have with
Algol 68 I can just guess that the problem is not the language here.
> It has lots of semi-esoteric features, of doubtful utility, but
> which likely affect its general usefulness.
(Bla, bla. - Nonsense.)
>
> And it looks dreadful with most stropping schemes. Quite unlike all
> those nicely typeset examples!
You said before that you don't like stropping in principle. This
just reinforces what someone here said before, that "most of your
objections are merely your preferences".
>
>> I'd have liked to see such sophistication in many of the later designed
>> languages (that partly were, to my honest astonishment, often so badly
>> timbered).
>
> Clearly its aesthetics appeal to you (and maybe the fact that few
> ordinary people can understand the programs you can write in it).
All the students back in my university days had not problem at all
learning Algol 68 en passant and programming with it. In our domain
we're all "ordinary people". The problem here is that your personal
mental reluctance to learn and understand concepts beyond your own
preferences seems to be a severe hindrance.
>
> I would found it useless for the stuff I do (eg. implementing very fast
> interpreters that need to use unsafe, underhand methods), even if there
> was a properly compiled version available.
Fair enough. (I don't think anyone would object to that.)
>
> (I believe there was an Algol68 front end for gcc released earlier this
> year; I haven't looked at it. See https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Algol68FrontEnd)
I've already heard about it but I have no need for another Algol 68
system, since I'm anyway using it only recreationally. But thanks.
Maybe others are interested (but I doubt it; who cares about a dead
language).
Janis
Back to comp.lang.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-01 16:00 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:54 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:33 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:50 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-02 11:10 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-02 11:44 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-02 13:12 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-02 13:23 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-03 00:42 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-03 15:03 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-03 16:40 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-03 17:00 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-03 21:02 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-03 20:34 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-03 22:35 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-03 23:37 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-04 07:16 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 11:10 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-04 16:46 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 16:17 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-04 17:26 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-04 17:49 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-04 18:38 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 19:30 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-04 21:04 +0100
Homebrew languages (was: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 00:39 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-05 12:52 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-05 14:02 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 18:28 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-04 21:14 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-03 17:32 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-03 20:28 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-03 20:10 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-03 22:31 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 12:24 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-04 17:02 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-05 12:25 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-05 14:12 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-05 14:28 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-06 08:29 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 14:18 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 15:58 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-07 21:22 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-07 23:13 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-08 03:17 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-08 03:50 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-08 04:47 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-08 12:42 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-08 21:37 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-09 20:34 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-09 21:08 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-09 16:58 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-08 11:34 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-09 17:16 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-09 19:11 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-09 20:58 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-10 13:56 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-10 20:52 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-11 12:53 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-11 20:51 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-06 17:14 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:41 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 22:01 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-08 12:24 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-07 23:33 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-04 00:35 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-04 07:07 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 14:57 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-05 23:59 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 01:03 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-06 07:40 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 10:59 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 17:58 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-06 20:14 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-06 22:16 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-06 22:47 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-07 14:34 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-07 15:42 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-07 16:50 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-08 00:26 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-08 01:54 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-08 14:00 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-10 00:11 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-10 00:43 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-10 09:08 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-10 13:28 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2025-11-10 10:11 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-10 11:02 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-10 15:00 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-10 15:52 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-10 17:05 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-10 10:10 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-11-10 15:48 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-07 17:59 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-12 11:01 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-12 20:47 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-12 22:22 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-12 23:28 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:35 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-13 11:37 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-04 01:05 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-04 01:24 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - array of procedures aligned at index 0 ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-04 02:28 +0000
csiph-web