[FreezingHazard]

So about last December I started development on my own personal scripting language that would go about doing standard tasks or custom tasks with.

I won't release all the information but down to the point the language would be leaned towards making specific things easier or by extending already out there languages.

Then a thought came to my head and now it's been sitting here waiting for me to implement commands, the thought was, should I continue and if I do would anyone even use my language?

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

Can be anything

[mentallybroken]

i doubt anyone would use it.

the question you will be facing is " what made you think that programmers will use your language compared to popular languages? "

This post has been edited by mentallybroken: 23 February 2010 - 01:46 AM

[FreezingHazard]

mentallybroken, on 23 February 2010 - 12:45 AM, said:

i doubt anyone would use it.

the question you will be facing is " what made you think that programmers will use your language compared to popular languages? "

Well to be quite honest it was made for personal uses primarily. I wanted to extend what I could do with normal languages with this one.

I was hoping to make the language task specific, do certain functions with ease.

Everything is still undecided so far, but I just got ideas floating around..


Anyone heard of SCAR?

Theres an example

[Charles:)]

FreezingHazard, on 22 February 2010 - 11:29 PM, said:

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

The problem with this is that if I'm using a scripting language and I'm finding something difficult or tedious to do then I'm much, much more likely to find a third-party library aimed at the specific task than to switch to a different language. For example Python and Perl are two of the most popular scripting languages around and they both have thousands of modules which you can download to help with specific tasks. Why would someone switch to a new scripting language when they can just download a free module for a language which they already know?

Probably the only exception would be if you include database and XML features in the language itself. Data access is such a common task that I think it should be built into languages rather than libraries.

But good luck trying, it sounds like a really interesting project to work on

[eclipsed4utoo]

Not really related to C#, so moved to the Cubicle Corner.

[dorknexus]

Unless your language is going to bring something new to the table besides new syntax to learn, then I'd say it's already dead in the water. Never hurts to experiment though.

[mentallybroken]

Charles:), on 23 February 2010 - 04:39 AM, said:

FreezingHazard, on 22 February 2010 - 11:29 PM, said:

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

The problem with this is that if I'm using a scripting language and I'm finding something difficult or tedious to do then I'm much, much more likely to find a third-party library aimed at the specific task than to switch to a different language. For example Python and Perl are two of the most popular scripting languages around and they both have thousands of modules which you can download to help with specific tasks. Why would someone switch to a new scripting language when they can just download a free module for a language which they already know?

Probably the only exception would be if you include database and XML features in the language itself. Data access is such a common task that I think it should be built into languages rather than libraries.

But good luck trying, it sounds like a really interesting project to work on

I totally agree..

[FreezingHazard]

Well the program is and has been fully developed since January.

I'll figure what i'ma do with it...

I implemented easy ways for me to write my own commands in it and execute stuff off it.

I even got an ability to have someone call a custom library that is for the scripter itself and run commands from it that weren't previously in the original code.



If anyone is interested in this program or has some crazy ideas of what to do with it and wants to help programming them in, hit me up.

[EdwinNameless]

FreezingHazard, on 23 February 2010 - 06:29 AM, said:

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

Can be anything

Ok! Dynamic typing, object support, first-class functions, native support for associative arrays, regular expressions, variadic functions, closures, more than likely a Java binding.

What does the syntax look like? It's also one of the key things for early adoption. Are you planning on pushing it on something like git or google code?

[FreezingHazard]

EdwinNameless, on 23 February 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

FreezingHazard, on 23 February 2010 - 06:29 AM, said:

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

Can be anything

Ok! Dynamic typing, object support, first-class functions, native support for associative arrays, regular expressions, variadic functions, closures, more than likely a Java binding.

What does the syntax look like? It's also one of the key things for early adoption. Are you planning on pushing it on something like git or google code?

All of that and more is in order actually, .

And as for the release like I said I have to clue, it could be anyones guess, as I stated I didn't mean to satisfy the crowd or perhaps bring a new language to the table for everyone to feast on, this was meant for me to do my tasks easier.



EDIT: I will most likely just bring the program to an end. As I can't bring myself to think it'd be the same as ruby..

Not that ruby is bad in fact its pretty cool, just we don't need 2.

This post has been edited by FreezingHazard: 23 February 2010 - 04:25 PM

[Pwn]

FreezingHazard, on 23 February 2010 - 04:47 PM, said:

this was meant for me to do my tasks easier.

Then I guess I don't understand why you're asking other people's input. Nobody wants to contribute to something they won't be able to use.

[FreezingHazard]

Pwn, on 23 February 2010 - 04:55 PM, said:

FreezingHazard, on 23 February 2010 - 04:47 PM, said:

this was meant for me to do my tasks easier.

Then I guess I don't understand why you're asking other people's input. Nobody wants to contribute to something they won't be able to use.

You know that's a bit ignorant, if you would have paid attention

Quote

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

Given with that in mind I thought I made it clear to implement features that would be of use for others, also.


Please no more replies, this thread has ended and decisions have been made, thanks to those who helped.

[macosxnerd101]

Pwn, on 23 February 2010 - 08:55 PM, said:

FreezingHazard, on 23 February 2010 - 04:47 PM, said:

this was meant for me to do my tasks easier.

Then I guess I don't understand why you're asking other people's input. Nobody wants to contribute to something they won't be able to use.

Because it's a forum where he's asking for input of Experts, Professionals, and other Students and Ameteurs. I think that if he's trying to design his own programming or scripting language, it's a great learning experience. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but language design is a key part of a college-level CS curriculum, either at the end of the undergaduate study or early during graduate studies.

[Raynes]

Charles:), on 23 February 2010 - 04:39 AM, said:

FreezingHazard, on 22 February 2010 - 11:29 PM, said:

I want to know, if you where to want a new scripting language, what would the task specific features that you'd want in it?

The problem with this is that if I'm using a scripting language and I'm finding something difficult or tedious to do then I'm much, much more likely to find a third-party library aimed at the specific task than to switch to a different language. For example Python and Perl are two of the most popular scripting languages around and they both have thousands of modules which you can download to help with specific tasks. Why would someone switch to a new scripting language when they can just download a free module for a language which they already know?

Probably the only exception would be if you include database and XML features in the language itself. Data access is such a common task that I think it should be built into languages rather than libraries.

But good luck trying, it sounds like a really interesting project to work on

Clojure comes to mind, having an XML library separate from the core namespace, though included in the standard distribution. Factor also comes to mind, as it comes with an XML vocabulary (library), and a couple of database vocabularies.

I think I prefer to keep language cores small and implement every feature possible in libraries instead of building them directly into the language. This is one of the reasons I like homoiconic languages like Ioke and Lisp so much, and even Factor has a neat macro system.

OT:

In order for a language to become popular in any respect, it must have at least one important and common goal. It must be something that people find important enough to justify the creation of a whole new language.

(I'll use Clojure and Scala as examples here, as they are what I'm most familiar with as it pertains to this thread.)

For example, one of Clojure's goals is making concurrency simpler and less scary, and in this respect it succeeds. Another of Clojure's important primary goals is to be practical, and easy to use without carrying around the baggage of other Lisp's pasts. To fulfill this goal, Clojure was built upon the JVM. This gave it access to every Java/<insert JVM language here> library round, and accessing Java libraries directly instead of writing lispy wrappers was made idiomatic. That solved the problem that all new languages have when they start out, which is not having any libraries. Besides that, the JVM is everywhere, and almost everybody knows it and has used it for something before.

These goals have earned Clojure a very large and enthusiastic community that echo of Clojure's immediate success, even in it's early stages. It's even earned it a bit of support in the industry.

Scala's appeal is similar in a few respects. It's primary goals AFAIK are to just fix the problems with Java, and create a modern language with important functional constructs along the way. The first goal alone as earned it a large and enthusiastic community.

What you need to ask yourself is "How does my language measure up to new languages that are catching lots of attention?" and "What do these people do that I should be doing?"

If you're serious about creating a new language, figure out the flaws of current languages, and set goals. Take the mistakes of past technologies and fix them.

Good luck.

EDIT: Didn't realize you didn't want anymore replies. Sorry.

This post has been edited by Raynes: 01 March 2010 - 04:54 PM

[Pwn]

comment retracted for lack of absorbency

This post has been edited by Pwn: 24 February 2010 - 07:26 AM