As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
my development style brings me to write a lot of throw-away "assisting" code,
whether for automatic generation of code parts, semi-automated testing, and generally to build dummies, prototypes or temporary "sparring partners" for the main development; I know I'm not the only one...
since I frequently work both under windows and Unicies, I'd like to non-exclusively focus on a single "swiss army knife" tool that can work in both the environments with limited differences, that would allow me to do usual stuff like text parsing, db access, sockets, nontrivial filesystem and process manipulation
until now under unix I've used a bit of perl and massive amounts of shell scripts, but the latter are a bit limited and perl... despite being very capable and having modules for an incredible array of duties, sincerely I find it too "hostile" for me for something that goes beyond 100 lines of code.
what would you suggest?
scripting is not a requirement, it would be ok to use more static-styled languages IF it makes development faster (getting programs to actually do their work and possibly in a human readable state) and if it doesn't become nightmarish to handle errors/exception and to adapt to dynamic environments (e.g. I don't like to hardwire data /db table structure in my code, especially by hand).
I've been intrigued by python, ruby, but maybe groovy (with its ability to access the huge class library and his compact syntax) or something else is better suited
thanks a lot in advance!
(meanwhile, on a completely different note, scala looks really tempting just for the cleanliness of it, but that's - probably - a completely different story, unless you tell me the opposite...?)
Python is arguably one of the best choices. Its biggest benefit is that it has a huge built-in library for doing all sorts of stuff. It is also mature, very cross-platform, actively developed, and has many support options (mailing lists, newsgroups, etc).
In addition, it has a built-in GUI toolkit (tkinter) for those times when you need to write a quick GUI to get input from a user or display output from a running process. And if you don't like tkinter, there are other cross-platform GUI toolkits available.
I suggest Python.
For me it has a sweet spot of good libraries, documentation, community, cross-platform functionality, and ease of writing/reading.
It fills a similar niche to Perl's, but if you find Perl to be 'hostile' for longer scripts, you will probably like Python, especially when compared to Ruby, which feels more Perl-y, IMHO.
As an aside, all of these are quite easy to just try out - why not do that?
Then you can decide for yourself instead of trusting the questionable wisdom of an online forum (:
I think that Python and Ruby are your best bets, depending on exactly how you think and code.
I personally find Python EXTREMELY readable and its syntax is highly intuitive. I've heard Python described as "pseudo-code plus colons."
On the other hand, once you get around its slightly bizarre syntax, Ruby makes for high-speed development. It's built around DRY principles and convention-before-configuration, which is great for rapid prototyping.
There are other languages--especially Haskell and the Lisp dialects--that can make for super-rapid prototyping, but they don't have as large a supportive community, so there's a shortage in library and discussion supply.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I am going to develop an application for OS X and I need some scripting engine for it.
The purpose of the scripts is to receive a text on their input (HTML file in most cases), parse it in some way and return the data to my app. These scripts should be easily editable by the users, therefore they should have some common used syntax like C or pascal.
Can you suggest some lightweight solution for this?
Thanks!
PS. I am new to OS X development, trying to switch from Windows...
Two suggestions:
Javascript, try the V8 engine. http://code.google.com/p/v8/ Very popular, likely familiar syntax to many.
Lua. http://www.lua.org Extremely lightweight and simple to connect. If your script editors write scripts for World of Warcraft, for example, they will know Lua.
In general AppleScript/Automator actions are easy for the end user to work with since the technology includes a GUI for building scripts without much programming knowledge. For experienced developers used to other languages, they can be a bit too friendly/loose and have a somewhat different syntax (more like plain English). The good thing is that they can also call other languages as needed, so a developer familiar with Perl or whatever could incorporate that into an AppleScript or Automator action.
Since you're talking about parsing text, Perl itself would be a good solution - again there's some difference in syntax, but the scripts can be rather compact and the basics of parsing aren't too difficult to learn. I haven't personally incorporated Perl into an OS X app, I've just used it on the command line, so I don't know if there are any pitfalls to that approach.
One additional advantage to AppleScript is that you can make your application itself scriptable so that users could automate the functions of your application into a larger workflow.
I would suggest downloading the free TextWrangler application by Bare Bones Software, or a similar developer's text editor, to see how they incorporate scripting into the application. This may give you additional insight into your approach.
LUA seems to be a good choice.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I have a bunch of C code accessing database (Oracle, DB2 and Sybase) through Embedded SQL : the base code is the same, but with three different precompilers, three sort of executables are built, one for each database/platform.
I works perfectly fine, but we need now migrate to a solution using ODBC access.
The problem is : what tools / api can be used ? A direct way seems to write a custom precompiler (or modify an existent) to wrap all SQL and host variables calls to calls on an ODBC connection.
Can somebody recommend tools for that task or api to keep it simple ?
Or is it a simpler way, another approach ?
Thank you
As is usual for such situations, there are likely no off shelf answers; people's codebases always have a number of surprise in them, and the combination prevents a COTs tool from ever being economical for individual situations.
What you want is a program transformation system (PTS), with a C front end, that can be customized to parse embedded SQL. Such tools can apply source-to-source rewrite rules ("if you see this pattern, then replace it by that pattern") to solve the problem.
These tools require some pretty technical effort to configure. In your case, you'd have to adjust a C front end to handle embedded SQL; that's typically not in C parsers. (How is it that you can process this stuff in its current form?) You'll have trouble with the C preprocessor, because people do abusive things with it that really violate a parsers nested-structures-view of the universe. Then you'll have to write and test the rules.
This effort is a sunk cost to be traded against the effort of doing the work by hand or some more ad hoc scripting (e.g., Perl) that partially does the job leaving you to clean it up. Our experience is that it is not worth the trouble below 100K SLOC, and that you have no chance of manual/ad hoc remediation above 1M SLOC, and in between your mileage will vary.
At these intermediate sizes, you can agonize over the tradeoffs; that costs energy and time, too. Sometimes its just better to bite the bullet and do it any way you can an clean it up.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is one of these PTS. It has a customizable C parser and preprocessor, precisely to help deal with these configuration troubles. The other PTSs mentioned in the Wikipedia article, do not, I beleive, have any serious C parser associated with them. (I'm the guy behind DMS).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've read a blog post called Blogging with Noir, and I was honestly surprised that the author uses java.jdbc instead of libraries like Korma which I found surprising. What are the advantages of writing SQL queries in your code instead of letting tools do it for you?
I guess it is for the usual reasons that you might choose to use an API directly in Clojure rather than use a wrapper:
Existing knowledge: you already know the JDBC well and know that it will get the job done, why spend time learning a new abstraction unless there is a clear advantage?
Uncertainty - does the library have all the features you need? Will it continue to be maintained and implement new features in the future?
Stability - the wrapper may not yet be mature, so you run the risk of your code having to change if breaking changes occur / bugs are discovered.
Completeness - the wrapper may not (yet) encapsulate all of the functionality of the original API that you need
Overhead - sometimes extra layers of abstraction add a performance overhead that you don't need/want
Extra dependency - adds complexity to your build, and conceptual overhead in terms of the number of abstractions you need to keep in your head.
Ultimately it's a trade-off - the above are reasons that you might want to use the underlying API, but there are equally good reasons that you may choose to use the wrapper:
More idiomatic - a wrapper library is likely to give you much cleaner, more elegant code than a Java-based API (particularly if the Java API is imperative/stateful). You have to admit that Korma is pretty elegant!
More composable - Clojure wrappers tend to adopt a functional style, which leads to easy composability with other clojure code / libraries.
New features - often Clojure wrappers add extra functionality that the original API does not posess (for example, look at the data binding functionality added on top of Swing by Seesaw)
Korma IMO isn't nearly ready to be used as a full replacement for SQL. It's definitely handy, but right now a lot of my queries have (raw "...") snippets in them, and for more complicated stuff all the main querying is done inside SQL views which are then selected on via korma.
The main alternative, ClojureQL, doesn't even work with Clojure 1.3+
In short, it's hard to abstract SQL, and Korma - even though it tries to be minimal, meaning you still have to understand SQL pretty well to use it - isn't finished.
I can think about two reasons:
Almost everybody knows SQL, almost nobody knows Korma
This is a guess, because I do not know Korma myself, but raw SQL is sometimes suitable or even necessary if you want to do something specific like features that are only present in a particular database
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a great idea for a 3D network game, and I've concluded that it is possible to write it in Java as an applet which will live under the web browser, just like a full software in C++. And it will look and feel the same.
The main advantage of Java on C++ is that with Java you can play without downloading any software. I have already thought about the download of the graphics, sound, etc but I found a solution for it. RuneScape just proves that it is possible.
So my first question is, should my game live on a web browser or on the operating system? I think that in a web browser it is much more portable, although you need install Java and stuff. But the fact is, that most MMO games are currently not in the web. If you suggest in a software so please suggest a language either - C++ or something more productive like Python or C#?
So after choosing a language, I need a graphics solution. Should I write directly with OpenGL/DirectX or use a game engine? What game engine should I use? Ogre? jMonkeyEngine?
What's your opinion?
Thank you!
P.S: Please don't use answers like "Use what you know".
Despite your last point, use whatever you can, and what will provide the biggest user base possible.
Applets are old, and no longer used as extensively as they used to. Flash or Silverlight are the "standard" for web games now. It may be worth checking out JavaFX based your interest in using Java, it's supposedly a replacement for what applets should have been. I've not actually used JavaFX, nor do I hear much about it, take that as you wish. The biggest benefit of deploying to the web is as you've said, the user base is larger and people are more likely to give your game a play. The downside is that you end up using the likes of Flash or equivalent for the development process.
If you go down the route of building a standalone application, you can use whatever you want. C++, Java, C#, Python and so on are all viable options. You can make games in most languages. C++ is the industry standard but ignore this fact. You can make amazing looking and performing games in any language if you are a hobbyist developer. What I'm trying to say is that unless you are building the next big hit, using C++ can be avoided. In contrast to web applications, your users will require a framework/API that you use. For example, they'll need OpenGL/DirectX/XNA and so forth. As for XNA vs DirectX vs OpenGL? It matters not, your language choice will most likely dictate your choice of graphics API/Framework. So I'll leave this point up to yourself for research.
As for should you use an engine? It depends.
Are you making a game which is complex enough to warrant an engine?
Do you wish to just focus on the game, rather than the engine?
Do you feel comfortable learning an existing engine?
Do you feel comfortable producing the required components (collision etc..) on your own?
Other factors come into this, but it may be worth just focusing on the game at hand. You can easily write a simple enough engine for what you require. By doing this, you'll avoid licensing and deployment issues.
One option to consider is the Unity 3D game engine - in addition to being a fairly powerful development tool, it has several cross-platform deployment options. You can build both a stand-alone executable (for Windows and Mac, not yet Linux), and a web-browser version, which answers your first question about deploying on the web versus OS. You can do both.
It also uses both Javascript and C# (and Boo, a variant of Python) for scripting languages. These are based on Mono, the Open-Source version of .NET, so it's not just a gaming platform, but has access to all of .NET's abilities (well, those implemented in Mono anyway).
See the Licensing page for a long list of Unity's features (the Basic version is free). And check out the list of Unity-based games, of which the first is Tiger Woods PGA Tour Online, by Electronic Arts.
A game that just runs as an applet will not be percieved as a real game to most hardcore gamers.
If you want a game that is played only by noobs, the java might be an option, otherwise drop it and stick to a language that allows to actually produce executables.
Talking about the library, there are not so many you can't try them all and chose the one you like the most, so... do just that.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm looking at doing embedded coding for a device that's approximately 20MHz, has 6mb ram, with an ARM32 processor. Can anyone suggest the best / most appropriate language for programming an embedded system? I'm considering:
Lua
TinyPy
C
Java ME
C#
someone has suggested JavaScript
Any suggestions? Thanks
Edit - looks like C and Lua are the winners. Cheers all!
Edit - Real Time is not an issue, its more the limited ram/cpu dictating things.
If you're bringing the device up from scratch or interfacing directly with non-standard peripherals, C is really the only way to go.
If you've already got an embedded OS or can port one without difficulty, you might have more flexibility in adding one of the more script-y languages. C# is out of the question unless you're on WinCE, and then you'll be restricted to .NET Micro.
Beyond that, "best" has little meaning without describing what your device is going to be used for. Some languages have better support for certain tasks than others.
C is probably your best bet for such limited cpu resources.
I've used Lua on an ARM OMAP processor. Lua's tight integration with C allows going to the metal whenever you need, and its small size makes it suitable for a wide range of platforms. I developed the UI for my firmware in Lua on my mac and then brought it over to the embedded platform with no changes.
While the OMAP processor was beefy enough to run other languages like Java or Python, I didn't know what hardware I was targeting when I started the code. Lua was a safe bet.
I'd be tempted to go with straight C, but then I've been writing C for nearly 30 years. Lua and TinyPy seem too new, experimental, to me; embedded devices need to be very robust.
Java ME has good points. I don't know about C# in an embedded world.
It's important to specify what you expect this device to do. Is it some sort of control application? Does it have to implement algorithms? What about floating-point support? GUIs? Is performance critical? Are you planning on using an OS?
Answering these questions is a crucial prerequisite to picking a programming language.
That said, embedded systems have to be reliable, so I'd go for some tested solution. C is probably the most solid and best-supported option for ARM chips, but YMMV depending on your specific needs.
C is certainly the most used language in embedded systems.
It also seems to be the most talked about language in general http://www.langpop.com/
Edit: hmm. I just noticed that the 'embedded' you seem to be describing is not about adding an automation language to an application, but squeezing an application into an embedded platform. As others suggest, unless you really need it, skip embeddable languages and program your application in C. There is nearly no runtime overhead for that, except for what you actually use.
In no particular order, Lua, JavaScript and TCL are all quite well suited to embedding. Lua has been the easiest for me to embed. Javascript might be the fastest. All three have good handling for untrusted code, but TCL's is most robust, for example, untrusted code can run untrusted code (if it's trusted to do that much).
Unless you have an RTOS available that supports a variety of alternate languages, C or C++ (depending on your compiler chain) is the way to go.
Your decision is most likely to be determined by the tools avaiable for this processor.
C is by far the most supported language for embedded processors, so you can't go far wrong with that, and it will be good experience if you have to write software for other chips in the future.
C++ is becoming more popular for embedded systems. Beyond that, it depends on your priorities (time to market, resource usage, speed), and the quality of the tools you use.
C the best