Phoenix.pm: quoting constant hash keys survey

[Anthony Nemmer]

Funny you should mention ADA.  I still have the ADA Strawman Spec buried 
under a load of other books in my apartment.  I got it when I was 
stationed at the Pentagon.  And there are many military and defense 
contractors who simply refuse to use it.  They swear by a computer 
language called Jovial instead, which as far as I can tell is Algol with 
some form of multi-threading built in to the core syntax of the 
language.  There's even a Jovial fan site!

http://www.jovial.hill.af.mil/

 From the web site:

"Some of the more notable weapon systems using JOVIAL include (but are 
not limited too) the Advanced Cruise Missile, B-52, B-1, and B-2 
Bombers, C-130, C-141, and C-17 Transport Aircraft, F-15, F-16, F-18, 
and F-117 Fighter Aircraft, LANTIRN, U-2 Aircraft, E-3 AWACS Aircraft, 
Special Operations Forces, Navy AEGIS Cruisers, Army Multiple Launch 
Rocket System, Army Blackhawk Helicopters, F100, F117, F119 Jet Engines, 
and RL-10 Rocket Engines."

Not too shabby for a computer language that was developed in the early 
1960's.

As for Snobol, you may be interested to know that the developers of 
Snobol have created a new language named Icon:

http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/index.htm

Looks like it has a lot of promise, wonder if it will catch on as a 
general purpose scripting language?

Tony

Scott Walters wrote:

>No, morse code has dots and dashes, Perl 6 uses UNICODE for operators,
>unsatisified with ASCII. The trendy thing to compare it to is Ada.
>
>All I can say is there is a nitch for a language that tolerates barewords.
>Bourne shell sucks too much. I'm thinking about resurrecting SNOBOL and
>hacking closures and iterators and such onto it =)
>
>It would be ironic since one of the most requsted features for Perl 6
>was SNOBOL like pattern matching, which Larry denied (communities
>rewrite my ass).
>
>-scott
>
>On  0, Anthony Nemmer <intertwingled at qwest.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Perl 6 i going to end up looking like Morse Code. =)
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>Scott Walters wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>String concat has been renamed ~ from _. . is method call. Primitive
>>>types "autobox" now, so you can ask an array for a length or a hash
>>>for its keys:
>>>
>>> %hash.keys  # method call
>>>
>>>So, people have adopted the dot for method calls, and JavaScript uses the
>>>dot for both method calls and hash subscripts (as well as array indices),
>>>but since we could be either calling a method or subscripting a primitive,
>>>we have to tell perl which it is or risk confusion when we can't access
>>>hash subscripts with the same name as methods.
>>>
>>>-scott
>>>
>>>On  0, eden li <eden.li at asu.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I like it, but I don't see why perl can't just adopt the dot like Java and C.
>>>>
>>>>%foo.bar -> %foo{'bar'}
>>>>
>>>>I guess could be ambiguously parsed as a string concat operator:
>>>>
>>>>(%foo) . bar()
>>>>
>>>>But I'm wondering if %foo can exist in that context all by itself in Perl6.  Anyway, either way, I'm all for typing less.  Besides, gullimets seem to stand out more than they should, especially for every hash access in which you don't feel like typing quotes.
>>>>
>>>>Scott Walters wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Okey, everyone run and vote - yea or nay. Let's hear it. Even if your
>>>>>reasons are unfounded, vote.
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>-- 
>>
>>SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 

SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.