Eduard Sergeev wrote:
OK, my version of meaningless statistics:
C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)): 325 pages (712 including standard libraries)
C# (ECMA-334): 505 pages (language only)
Java: 450 pages (language only?)
Scala (2.7): 125 pages (157 including standard library)
Eiffel (ECMA-367): 160 pages
Andrew Coppin wrote:
OK people, it's random statistics time!
OK, my version of meaningless statistics:
Java: 450 pages (language only?)
Which version is this?
The version of the Java Language Specification (version 3.0, 2005) I
am currently reading has 684 pages.
I'd prefer to read o
PL/I has keywords, they're just not reserved words.
With as many keywords as PL/I has, there something to say for not
making them reserved. :)
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 05:45 , Ketil Malde wrote:
>>
>> "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" write
Eduard Sergeev schrieb:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
OK people, it's random statistics time!
OK, my version of meaningless statistics:
C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)): 325 pages (712 including standard libraries)
C# (ECMA-334): 505 pages (language only)
Java: 450 pages (language only?)
Scala (2.7
Niklas Broberg schrieb:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, let, module, newtype, of
Andrew Coppin schrieb:
Hmm, I wonder if there's some way to compare the size of the language
specification documents? :-}
PS. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that C++ has the most
keywords. But then, if I were to add AMOS Professional, that had well
over 800 keywords at the last coun
On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
Niklas Broberg wrote:
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, let, module, newtype,
of,
then, type, where. There's also three special words
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
Niklas Broberg wrote:
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, let, module, newtype, of,
then, type, where. There's also three special words that can still be
used as identifiers, so aren't reserv
>> Unicode identifiers are fun but this is a good point. The line has
>> to be somewhere, so it might as well be in the historical position
>> unless there are widely agreed on benefits to moving it.
>
> I have already crossed that line:
Ha, well haskell programmers wouldn't be haskell programmer
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:42:06 +, you wrote:
>> All Lisps have "special forms" which are evaluated uniquely and differently
>> from function application and are therefore reserved words by another name.
>> For example, Clojure has def, if, do, let, var, quote, fn, loop, recur,
>> throw, try,
On 14 Jan 2010, at 14:42, Matthias Görgens wrote:
>> All Lisps have "special forms" which are evaluated uniquely and differently
>> from function application and are therefore reserved words by another name.
>> For example, Clojure has def, if, do, let, var, quote, fn, loop, recur,
>> throw, t
> All Lisps have "special forms" which are evaluated uniquely and differently
> from function application and are therefore reserved words by another name.
> For example, Clojure has def, if, do, let, var, quote, fn, loop, recur,
> throw, try, monitor-enter, monitor-exit, dot, new and set!.
Yes
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Colin Paul Adams
wrote:
>> "Tom" == Tom Tobin writes:
>
> Tom> readability. The ASCII characters are universal and easily
> Tom> recognized
>
> No they are not.
> My wife is Chinese. When she was learning pinyin as a child, she asked
> her father for h
> Since you can define operators in Haskell, would it make sense to include
> '=', '--', ':', ',' etc. as "reserved names" since those can't be used as
> operator names?
They are indeed reserved operators in the report. 11 of those:
.. : :: = \ | <- -> @ ~ =>
To be fair, _ is also a reserved ide
Niklas Broberg wrote:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, let, module, newtype, of,
then,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Colin Paul Adams
wrote:
>> "Roel" == Roel van Dijk writes:
>
> Roel> I think it is time for an Obfuscated Haskell Contest :-)
>
> Are you allowed to use obsolete scripts for your identifiers? :-)
Sure, I'll consider bonus points if you write your program
> "Roel" == Roel van Dijk writes:
Roel> I think it is time for an Obfuscated Haskell Contest :-)
Are you allowed to use obsolete scripts for your identifiers? :-)
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@has
> Thus speaketh the report (http://haskell.org/onlinereport/lexemes.html):
>
> symbol -> ascSymbol | uniSymbol
> ascSymbol -> ! | # | $ | % | & | * | + | . | / | < | = | > | ? | @
> | \ | ^ | | | - | ~
> uniSymbol -> any Unicode symbol or punctuation
>
> P
Am Donnerstag 14 Januar 2010 11:38:57 schrieb Roel van Dijk:
>
> I was a bit surprised that you could use ＊ as an operator since it is
> a punctuation character. Maybe there are some corner cases with
> fullwidth characters or with composition of characters.
>
Thus speaketh the report (http://hask
2010/1/14 Evan Laforge :
> Wow, that's kind of cute:
>
> {-# LANGUAGE UnicodeSyntax #-}
> (＊) = (*)
> (／) = (/)
> 公式 高 中 低 = 高 ＊ 中 ＊ 低 ／ 整數
> 整數 = 123
That code snippet is also perfectly legal Haskell without the
UnicodeSyntax language extension. You use UnicodeSyntax if you want to
write code lik
Wow, that's kind of cute:
{-# LANGUAGE UnicodeSyntax #-}
(＊) = (*)
(／) = (/)
公式 高 中 低=高＊中＊低／整數
整數 = 123
Oddly, if I change the order of these definitions I get syntax errors.
Very mysterious. Nice how it knows that ＊ is a symbol, but I'm not
sure how I'm supposed to name a type. It certainly s
> "Tom" == Tom Tobin writes:
Tom> readability. The ASCII characters are universal and easily
Tom> recognized
No they are not.
My wife is Chinese. When she was learning pinyin as a child, she asked
her father for help with some homework. He replied that he didn't
understand them.
--
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:25 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
>> (And even if that's not the case, I've yet to find a way to type in the
>> Unicode characters which are hypothetically possible.)
>
> That's a problem with your editor/development
On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:42 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:25 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Andrew> It's weird that us Haskell people complain about there
Andrew> being only 26 letters in the alphabet
Which alphabet?
You have p
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Eduard Sergeev
wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >
> > OK people, it's random statistics time!
>
> OK, my version of meaningless statistics:
>
> C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)): 325 pages (712 including standard libraries)
> C# (ECMA-334): 505 pages (language only)
On 13 Jan 2010, at 22:25, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Andrew> It's weird that us Haskell people complain about there
Andrew> being only 26 letters in the alphabet
Which alphabet?
You have plenty of choice in Unicode.
Er... I was under the impression that Haskell sour
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:25 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Andrew> It's weird that us Haskell people complain about there
Andrew> being only 26 letters in the alphabet
Which alphabet?
You have plenty of choice in Unicode.
Er... I was under
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:29 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Are we counting the FFI annex ("foreign")?
Strictly, wasn't that added *after* the Haskell 98 report was
written? I.e., if you wanted to be ultra-technical about it, it's not
par
sylvain wrote:
Le mardi 12 janvier 2010 à 21:25 +, Andrew Coppin a écrit :
Hi Andrew,
As you can see, this conclusively proves... something.
What, exactly?
Not a lot. As you so elegantly point out, the number of keywords in a
language is a fairly crude measurement of how co
On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:29 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:12 , Niklas Broberg wrote:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
"forall"
and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, da
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:12 , Niklas Broberg wrote:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
"forall"
and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, in
On Jan 13, 2010, at 14:25 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Andrew> It's weird that us Haskell people complain about there
Andrew> being only 26 letters in the alphabet
Which alphabet?
You have plenty of choice in Unicode.
Er... I was under the impression that Haskell sourc
Marc Weber wrote:
As you can see, this conclusively proves... something.
What about brainfuck? 8 different signs are used.
-> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck#cite_note-0
The first link points to a page saying there is an interpreter 98 bytes
in size..
What does this prove? :-)
Colin Paul Adams wrote:
Andrew> It's weird that us Haskell people complain about there
Andrew> being only 26 letters in the alphabet
Which alphabet?
You have plenty of choice in Unicode.
Er... I was under the impression that Haskell source code uses the ASCII
character set, not Uni
On Jan 13, 2010, at 05:45 , Ketil Malde wrote:
"Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" writes:
If we're going to go that far, FORTRAN and PL/1 have none. FORTRAN
is
somewhat infamous for this:
There's also the option (perhaps this was PL/1?) of writing constructs
like: IF THEN THEN IF ELSE THEN etc.
"Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" writes:
> If we're going to go that far, FORTRAN and PL/1 have none. FORTRAN is
> somewhat infamous for this:
There's also the option (perhaps this was PL/1?) of writing constructs
like: IF THEN THEN IF ELSE THEN etc. Having few reserved words isn't
necessarily a be
Fraser Wilson writes:
> module LordsOfMidnight.Character(Character) where
>
> data Character = C { name :: String,
> location :: (Int,Int),
> facing :: Direction,
> hour :: Int,
> energy :: Int,
>
On Jan 13, 2010, at 03:49 , Martin Coxall wrote:
COBOL: Over 400 (!)
If we're going to go that far, FORTRAN and PL/1 have none. FORTRAN is
somewhat infamous for this: "DO 10 I = 1, 400" is a loop start, "DO
10 I = 1. 400" (note typo, "." for ",") parses as the assignment
"DO10I = 1.400
sylvain writes:
> Let me order your list:
> Smalltalk: 0
> Lisp: 0
> Tcl: 0
If you count reserved tokens, I guess Lisp reserves parentheses and
whitespace?
> Haskell: 21 *
> Python: 31
> C: 32 *
> JavaScript: 36
> Ruby: 38
> ---
> Borland Turbo Pascal: ~50
> Java: 53
> Eiffel: 59
> C++: 62
> As you can see, this conclusively proves... something.
What about brainfuck? 8 different signs are used.
-> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck#cite_note-0
The first link points to a page saying there is an interpreter 98 bytes
in size..
What does this prove? :-)
Marc Weber
___
On 12 Jan 2010, at 22:22, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Niklas Broberg wrote:
>>> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
>>> and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
>>>
>>
>> 21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
>> imp
On 12 Jan 2010, at 21:25, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> OK people, it's random statistics time!
>
> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall" and
> "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.) So how does that
> compare to other languages?
>
> C: 32
> C++: 62
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Daniel Fischer
wrote:
> Okay, 'as' is easy. But can you find a situation where 'qualified' or
> 'hiding' would be natural choices for an identifier? I'd love to see those
> in some code :)
>
module LordsOfMidnight.Character(Character) where
data Character = C {
> "Andrew" == Andrew Coppin writes:
Andrew> It's weird that us Haskell people complain about there
Andrew> being only 26 letters in the alphabet
Which alphabet?
You have plenty of choice in Unicode.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
___
Ha
On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:12 , Niklas Broberg wrote:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
"forall"
and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, l
On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:38 , Michael Hartl wrote:
Also, the number varies depending on whether you consider "reversed
words" or "keywords", and I suspect the situation is subtly different
"reversed words"? There are some in sh for example, namely 'fi' and
'esac', but other than that they are not
Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> OK people, it's random statistics time!
OK, my version of meaningless statistics:
C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)): 325 pages (712 including standard libraries)
C# (ECMA-334): 505 pages (language only)
Java: 450 pages (language only?)
Scala (2.7): 125 pages (157 including s
Le mardi 12 janvier 2010 à 21:25 +, Andrew Coppin a écrit :
Hi Andrew,
> As you can see, this conclusively proves... something.
What, exactly?
Take Eiffel in its last version: I have identified 11 keywords that are
either used for Design By Contract or source-code documentation. These
are s
Hello Andrew,
Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 1:54:44 AM, you wrote:
> (The material I quoted from had notes about which version of Java added
> certain of the words. I guess it was outdated.)
you would be more respected in this list if you will compare haskell 1.0
with java'2010 or better '2020 ;)
Tony Morris wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Java: 50
Java has 53 reserved words.
Damnit. They must have added a few more...
(The material I quoted from had notes about which version of Java added
certain of the words. I guess it was outdated.)
_
Andrew Coppin wrote:
> OK people, it's random statistics time!
>
> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
> "forall" and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.) So
> how does that compare to other languages?
>
> C: 32
> C++: 62
> Borland Turbo Pascal: ~50 [wi
Am Dienstag, den 12.01.2010, 22:22 + schrieb Andrew Coppin:
> Niklas Broberg wrote:
> >> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
> >> and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
> >>
> >
> > 21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving,
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Dienstag 12 Januar 2010 23:12:20 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
"forall" and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import
Am Dienstag 12 Januar 2010 23:12:20 schrieb Niklas Broberg:
> > Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
> > "forall" and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
>
> 21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
> import, in, infix, infixl, i
Niklas Broberg wrote:
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, let, module, newtype, of,
> Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting "forall"
> and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.)
21 actually. case, class, data, default, deriving, do, else, if,
import, in, infix, infixl, infixr, instance, let, module, newtype, of,
then, type, where. There's
OK people, it's random statistics time!
Haskell '98 apparently features 25 reserved words. (Not counting
"forall" and "mdo" and so on, which AFAIK are not in Haskell '98.) So
how does that compare to other languages?
C: 32
C++: 62
Borland Turbo Pascal: ~50 [without the OOP extensions added la
57 matches
Mail list logo
