I'm not taking anything as flame (that's just how I react occasionally.  ;) I didn't mean my post as reactionary or flame either;  sorry if you took it that way.

Oh well I can live with semicolons.  Not a big deal.  It's better than having to surround every statement with parenthesis or braces.

I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.  A smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as well as, say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.

You could program in a sort of boxes, plugs, and sockets view; a kind of data flow graph.  Maybe toggle back and forth between that and text view. Or to a class hierarchy view.  The raw text view is so restrictive and antiquated in comparison.  One could make a programming language that didn't use text at all if you tried.

What's really important in a language (to me) is the conceptual relationships between its elements. What gets what to do what with what.

Sean

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3D065180.651B3109@deming-os.org...
> "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
>
> > Someone *could* write this:
> >
> > int a;b,
> >
> > int c = b+;
> > a = a ++ b;
> >
> > Now what the hell does *that* do?  And how is that any more or less
likely
> > than forgetting a semicolon?
>
> Sounds like my previous post sounded like a flame.  I'm sorry - I
certainly
> didn't mean it that way.
>
> What I was trying to illustrate was that a simple typo resulted in legal -
but
> unintended code.  I thought that the example was useful because at first I
was
> going to agree with you.  However, when the counterexample crossed my
mind, I
> changed my opinion.  For that reason, I thought that it was a good way to illustrate my (changed) opinion.
>
> My argument is just a variant of Walter's old argument: "If any binary
stream
> of data is a valid code, then there are no syntax errors.  Syntax errors
give
> you a simple sanity check to catch (some of the) invalid code."  I think
that
> semicolons do remarkably well in that role.
>
> Again, sorry for any flamish posts...

> 
> I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.  A smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as well as, say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.

The editor I use,  Epsilon, does automatic indenting, and I find it invaluable. Many errors are caught when the editor indents strangely due to a missing semicolon,  dangling else etc. It seems to me that I have seen an editor that marks the extent of blocks in the left margin. You're right though -- much more could be done.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ae6ql5$1c6h$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Oh well I can live with semicolons.  Not a big deal.  It's better than having to surround every statement with parenthesis or braces.

Heh! =)

Epsilon comes with the source code, so it could be extended to support D. Though I'm not capable of doing such a thing! I'm sure someone in this newsgroup is!

"Karl Bochert" <kbochert@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1103_1023868581@bose...
| >
| > I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The
| > text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.
A
| > smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as well
as,
| > say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.
|
| The editor I use,  Epsilon, does automatic indenting, and I find it
invaluable.
| Many errors are caught when the editor indents strangely due to a missing
| semicolon,  dangling else etc. It seems to me that I have seen an editor
that
| marks the extent of blocks in the left margin. You're right though --
much
| more could be done.
|
|

"Sean L. Palmer" wrote:

> Oh well I can live with semicolons.  Not a big deal.  It's better than having to surround every statement with parenthesis or braces.

Or whitespace, like some languages. :)  Heck, in Korn shell (I think bash is the
same), these two lines are different:
    if [[ $a="asdf" ]]; then
    if [[ $a = "asdf" ]]; then
The first is a syntax error because it tries to do an assignment in the
test...the second is a legal comparison. :(

> I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.  A smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as well as, say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.
>
> You could program in a sort of boxes, plugs, and sockets view; a kind of data flow graph.  Maybe toggle back and forth between that and text view. Or to a class hierarchy view.  The raw text view is so restrictive and antiquated in comparison.  One could make a programming language that didn't use text at all if you tried.
>
> What's really important in a language (to me) is the conceptual relationships between its elements. What gets what to do what with what.

Amen!  Hoorah!  Preach on, brother!

I love D, and plan to use it as my only practical language (once the Linux version comes out) - but I have a number of ideas simmering in the back of my mind about what a language *should* be.

On a somewhat related note, I've often thought that it would be nice to embed various types of documents into my source code.  For instance, what if your comment could be in the form of a document from a word processor, inlined into the source document?  Or what if, instead of having a big block of constants to initialize an array of structures, you could inline a spreadsheet and have the rows from the spreadsheet be the various array elements?  Stuff like that.

--
The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

PCgrasp draws boxes and things around code as you type. I always turn it of because It annoys me. Any how PCgrasp is lacking in many other areas.

I am considering writting a D focused IDE if I get some time. I would like to make it UML focused, like rational rose (or visual modeler) but simpler and with all the programming IDE stuff as well. I'd make it strongly reliant on plugs so that I won't need to write everything and so users could customise it.

I would probably have to do it in C++ not D because it supports extenable controls that are in MFC, which win32 doesn't (but I may be wrong). Or is there another way?



"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ae6ql5$1c6h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm not taking anything as flame (that's just how I react occasionally.
;)
> I didn't mean my post as reactionary or flame either;  sorry if you took
it
> that way.
>
> Oh well I can live with semicolons.  Not a big deal.  It's better than having to surround every statement with parenthesis or braces.
>
> I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.  A smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as well
as,
> say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.
>
> You could program in a sort of boxes, plugs, and sockets view; a kind of data flow graph.  Maybe toggle back and forth between that and text view. Or to a class hierarchy view.  The raw text view is so restrictive and antiquated in comparison.  One could make a programming language that
didn't
> use text at all if you tried.
>
> What's really important in a language (to me) is the conceptual relationships between its elements. What gets what to do what with what.
>
> Sean
>
> "Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3D065180.651B3109@deming-os.org...
> > "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
> >
> > > Someone *could* write this:
> > >
> > > int a;b,
> > >
> > > int c = b+;
> > > a = a ++ b;
> > >
> > > Now what the hell does *that* do?  And how is that any more or less
> likely
> > > than forgetting a semicolon?
> >
> > Sounds like my previous post sounded like a flame.  I'm sorry - I
> certainly
> > didn't mean it that way.
> >
> > What I was trying to illustrate was that a simple typo resulted in
legal -
> but
> > unintended code.  I thought that the example was useful because at first
I
> was
> > going to agree with you.  However, when the counterexample crossed my
> mind, I
> > changed my opinion.  For that reason, I thought that it was a good way
to
> > illustrate my (changed) opinion.
> >
> > My argument is just a variant of Walter's old argument: "If any binary
> stream
> > of data is a valid code, then there are no syntax errors.  Syntax errors
> give
> > you a simple sanity check to catch (some of the) invalid code."  I think
> that
> > semicolons do remarkably well in that role.
> >
> > Again, sorry for any flamish posts...
>
>
>

I think Epsilon could be a good place to start! Were I capable, I would just streamline the program for D only. Of course you could just add support for D given the many different languages in which the mass probably programs. It is already available for WinDoze, Linux, FreeBSD, and OS/2 platforms (source code provided).

Andrew

"anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message
news:ae7jdn$jpl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| PCgrasp draws boxes and things around code as you type. I always turn it
of
| because It annoys me. Any how PCgrasp is lacking in many other areas.
|
| I am considering writting a D focused IDE if I get some time. I would
like
| to make it UML focused, like rational rose (or visual modeler) but
simpler
| and with all the programming IDE stuff as well. I'd make it strongly
reliant
| on plugs so that I won't need to write everything and so users could
| customise it.
|
| I would probably have to do it in C++ not D because it supports extenable
| controls that are in MFC, which win32 doesn't (but I may be wrong). Or is
| there another way?
|
|
|
| "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:ae6ql5$1c6h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| > I'm not taking anything as flame (that's just how I react occasionally.
| ;)
| > I didn't mean my post as reactionary or flame either;  sorry if you
took
| it
| > that way.
| >
| > Oh well I can live with semicolons.  Not a big deal.  It's better than
| > having to surround every statement with parenthesis or braces.
| >
| > I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The
| > text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.
A
| > smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as well
| as,
| > say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.
| >
| > You could program in a sort of boxes, plugs, and sockets view; a kind
of
| > data flow graph.  Maybe toggle back and forth between that and text
view.
| > Or to a class hierarchy view.  The raw text view is so restrictive and
| > antiquated in comparison.  One could make a programming language that
| didn't
| > use text at all if you tried.
| >
| > What's really important in a language (to me) is the conceptual
| > relationships between its elements. What gets what to do what with
what.
| >
| > Sean
| >
| > "Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message
| > news:3D065180.651B3109@deming-os.org...
| > > "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
| > >
| > > > Someone *could* write this:
| > > >
| > > > int a;b,
| > > >
| > > > int c = b+;
| > > > a = a ++ b;
| > > >
| > > > Now what the hell does *that* do?  And how is that any more or less
| > likely
| > > > than forgetting a semicolon?
| > >
| > > Sounds like my previous post sounded like a flame.  I'm sorry - I
| > certainly
| > > didn't mean it that way.
| > >
| > > What I was trying to illustrate was that a simple typo resulted in
| legal -
| > but
| > > unintended code.  I thought that the example was useful because at
first
| I
| > was
| > > going to agree with you.  However, when the counterexample crossed my
| > mind, I
| > > changed my opinion.  For that reason, I thought that it was a good
way
| to
| > > illustrate my (changed) opinion.
| > >
| > > My argument is just a variant of Walter's old argument: "If any
binary
| > stream
| > > of data is a valid code, then there are no syntax errors.  Syntax
errors
| > give
| > > you a simple sanity check to catch (some of the) invalid code."  I
think
| > that
| > > semicolons do remarkably well in that role.
| > >
| > > Again, sorry for any flamish posts...
| >
| >
| >
|
|

Evaluation version of Epsilon for:

WinDoze:    http://www.lugaru.com/cgi-bin/send/eval/e11eval.exe

Linux: http://www.lugaru.com/cgi-bin/send/eval/epsilon11eval.tar.gz

FreeBSD    http://www.lugaru.com/cgi-bin/send/eval/epsilon11eval-bsd.tar.gz

OS/2            http://www.lugaru.com/cgi-bin/send/eval/e11os2.zip

Apone looking at Epsilon It seems little more then a text editor with text highlighting and lots of nifty functions. Don't get me wrong, it does have some great features. It does seem to be lacking in things like help as you write (things like showing the parameters of functions you call as you write). It doesn't seem to have project managment (being able to show class structure and more then one source at once). And as far as I can see it doesn't have much graphical support for things such as UML.

Parhaps these issues may be addressable? Parhaps the code could be extended to include these features. Parhaps some overlay program could be written and use Epsilon as the code editor, using OLE or something.

Anyway these are just my thoughts.

"Andrew" <crxace13@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ae7k1d$qir$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think Epsilon could be a good place to start! Were I capable, I would just streamline the program for D only. Of course you could just add support for D given the many different languages in which the mass
probably
> programs. It is already available for WinDoze, Linux, FreeBSD, and OS/2 platforms (source code provided).
>
> Andrew
>
> "anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ae7jdn$jpl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | PCgrasp draws boxes and things around code as you type. I always turn it
> of
> | because It annoys me. Any how PCgrasp is lacking in many other areas.
> |
> | I am considering writting a D focused IDE if I get some time. I would
> like
> | to make it UML focused, like rational rose (or visual modeler) but
> simpler
> | and with all the programming IDE stuff as well. I'd make it strongly
> reliant
> | on plugs so that I won't need to write everything and so users could
> | customise it.
> |
> | I would probably have to do it in C++ not D because it supports
extenable
> | controls that are in MFC, which win32 doesn't (but I may be wrong). Or
is
> | there another way?
> |
> |
> |
> | "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> | news:ae6ql5$1c6h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | > I'm not taking anything as flame (that's just how I react
occasionally.
> | ;)
> | > I didn't mean my post as reactionary or flame either;  sorry if you
> took
> | it
> | > that way.
> | >
> | > Oh well I can live with semicolons.  Not a big deal.  It's better than
> | > having to surround every statement with parenthesis or braces.
> | >
> | > I just wish the IDE/Editor performed more of these functions.  The
> | > text-based nature of programming languages is getting me down lately.
> A
> | > smart IDE can detect errors as you type, and could auto-indent, as
well
> | as,
> | > say, draw barely-visible boxes around each statement or whatever.
> | >
> | > You could program in a sort of boxes, plugs, and sockets view; a kind
> of
> | > data flow graph.  Maybe toggle back and forth between that and text
> view.
> | > Or to a class hierarchy view.  The raw text view is so restrictive and
> | > antiquated in comparison.  One could make a programming language that
> | didn't
> | > use text at all if you tried.
> | >
> | > What's really important in a language (to me) is the conceptual
> | > relationships between its elements. What gets what to do what with
> what.
> | >
> | > Sean
> | >
> | > "Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message
> | > news:3D065180.651B3109@deming-os.org...
> | > > "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
> | > >
> | > > > Someone *could* write this:
> | > > >
> | > > > int a;b,
> | > > >
> | > > > int c = b+;
> | > > > a = a ++ b;
> | > > >
> | > > > Now what the hell does *that* do?  And how is that any more or
less
> | > likely
> | > > > than forgetting a semicolon?
> | > >
> | > > Sounds like my previous post sounded like a flame.  I'm sorry - I
> | > certainly
> | > > didn't mean it that way.
> | > >
> | > > What I was trying to illustrate was that a simple typo resulted in
> | legal -
> | > but
> | > > unintended code.  I thought that the example was useful because at
> first
> | I
> | > was
> | > > going to agree with you.  However, when the counterexample crossed
my
> | > mind, I
> | > > changed my opinion.  For that reason, I thought that it was a good
> way
> | to
> | > > illustrate my (changed) opinion.
> | > >
> | > > My argument is just a variant of Walter's old argument: "If any
> binary
> | > stream
> | > > of data is a valid code, then there are no syntax errors.  Syntax
> errors
> | > give
> | > > you a simple sanity check to catch (some of the) invalid code."  I
> think
> | > that
> | > > semicolons do remarkably well in that role.
> | > >
> | > > Again, sorry for any flamish posts...
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message
> On a somewhat related note, I've often thought that it would be nice to
embed
> various types of documents into my source code.  For instance, what if
your
> comment could be in the form of a document from a word processor, inlined
into
> the source document?  Or what if, instead of having a big block of
constants to
> initialize an array of structures, you could inline a spreadsheet and have
the
> rows from the spreadsheet be the various array elements?  Stuff like that.

Coolness.

You could initialize a string from a hyperlink to a text file or a word processor document.

Have a function take a bitmap as an argument, but a hyperlink to a bitmap file on disk would work too (the compiler generates the call to the "load bitmap file from disk" function to convert it).

But you're talking about embedding via OLE.  Hmm...