programming language without abbreviations and symbols?
Posted 31 August 2012 - 03:38 PM
is there a programming language without abbreviations and symbols? or at least as less as possible?
Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:58 PM
what about c/c++?
I didnt ask about programming language with only abbreviations and symbols
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:
Posted 08 September 2012 - 08:02 AM
Why >did< you start the thread ?
Posted 09 September 2012 - 09:58 PM
I asked because I wanted to learn.
To learn more about your questions, and therefore more about you.
To understand what prompted your question and perhaps further my own understanding.
Because the question is different than some, where the response should be RTM.
Posted 10 September 2012 - 12:50 AM
for some reason that I dont fully comprehend, but for now, I dont endorse at all, they are not readable by users who dont know that language
I would like programming languages to utilize commonly used words and expressions, instead of abbreviations and their own symbols, so that their code will be fully comprehensive, just like pseudocode
for example, if we use "!=" which means "not equal to", others wont be able to read the code and understand what it means, unless they have RTM
what is the reason really? to make the code more consise? that could be a part of compiling! where it would replace "not equal to" with "!=" !
what else reason? so that we wont type too much? this is really stupid again, since we can use text autoexpanders
for example the idea of looping:
why dont we just:
keep doing that: until this happens: or this happens:
do 50 times this:
they make it so complicated and discourage people from programming, by using their own abbreviations
I consider myself very organizing person, so if anyone would like to sit down together and create a language that will be revolutionary, I think I will contribute alot to its syntax
Posted 10 September 2012 - 02:39 AM
* takes these examples you gave:
keep doing that: until this happens: or this happens: do 50 times this:
now lets actually use it in a real case:
keep doing that: message in a box: My message! until this happens: counter equals 5 or this happens: othervariable is not equal to TrueTo me, this looks pretty.. bleh.
and once you add variables to stuff, it breaks readability:
do this 50 times:<-- easy
do this %items% times:<-- not as easy
these are simple examples. but what if you get into big if chains? ifs inside ifs inside ifs inside loops using many variables and other 'advanced' things. like postmessage.
if apple is red: click coordinate 400 400<-- easy
if square root of myVarable*5+8/9*2 is 43 or fruit is color and fruit is round: send message 0x440C to %windowID% where wparam is 46 and lparam is BLANKvery confusing. first, we need a way to determine "real text" from variables and expressions. "round" is text, not a variable. everything else is variables or expressions computers can't easily tell that.... the OR's and AND's make it 1 jumbled mess. the "sendmessage" line is just uuuugly. now imagine if there were 37 other lines in it? it's be a major pain to read.
also, I believe AHK supports AND, OR, NOT. as in, the real words, not just &&, & ... ||, | ... !=, <> .
This idea isn't new and I believe it has been done. But I think it will only work with simple commands and scripts.
Idea: you should convert one of your decent sized scripts into the format you expect. then see how it looks. post it here too
Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:21 AM
But the simplest concept of "two and two equals four" requires learning a language.
What should be done about those who don't know the language?
weiterhin tun, dass: bis dies geschieht: oder in diesem Fall:
do 50 mal dies:
Do you want the language to allow for using numbers, which are actually symbols ?
How many words are there in the English language?
<!-- m -->http://oxforddiction... ... h-language<!-- m -->
With 'words' that are just 5 characters long, we could replace the perhaps 250,000 to 750,000 English words with a simpler code that is easier to keep track of. :wink:
Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:00 AM
you say that programming languages use symbols and abbreviations (that almost 100% of the cases arent universally used in mathematics, so that people would know them from before), because there are some programmers that dont speak english
well, this arguement is not valid, since in most sciences, english is the main language (eg. if you dont know english, you cant keep up with medical science)
second, you say that code must be consise: well, true, but I offered a solution to "translate" code to a consise form at the point of compiling
last, you say that there are instances (like in variables) that we cant find a proper way to express them in english: again, I would prefer "[variable, type string, name myvariable1]" than "%var%"
Posted 11 September 2012 - 10:01 AM
So you want to make code longer...... check.If your unwilling to learn a few symbols. And i mean there really arent that many. then programming is just not for you.
"[variable, type string, name myvariable1]"
So since i know english i know what fistula or pleurisy is?...... your a ****ing idiot
if you dont know english, you cant i assume you meant can instead of cant.(otherwise your stupiderer than you seem) keep up with medical science
Posted 11 September 2012 - 02:58 PM
i mean really now. just Google/Bing search things before you make a blanket statment like that.
and the studies/drugs/research were not printed in English first in Sweeden and Japan...
“Any American who’s had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.”