I'm really excited about this new and experimental language named Subtext. But it's author haven't released nothing about it besides some papers and videos. Should I clone it? There are similar alternatives?
UPDATE I'm looking for an example-driven VPL, not just a VPL.
As Edwards' says in his related work section, the Self programming language is very similar. It shares subtext's emphsis on directness, uniformity, and liveness, but doesn't emphasize a tabular format (Schematic tables).
A lot of of work went into the Solaris version:
http://research.sun.com/self/papers/papers.html
seems there's a Mac & linux version, not sure how mature it is:
http://selflanguage.org/
Here's a video demo'ing Self, where they emphasize directness, uniformity, and liveness:
http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/
When you say "any VPL", do you mean none at all, or not a run-of-the-mill one? From the wording of the title question, I'll assume the latter. Here're a couple with some serious programming theory behind them:
Morphic is/was a/the UI piece of Self, and is now ported to Squeak:
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2139
Prograph was a way-cool system, but I don't know of an available version.
A bit further out there is Kahn's Toontalk, based on Pictorial Janus:
http://www.toontalk.com/
I am sure you are aware of VPL On Wikipedia that lists many different VPL languages. You have not supplied information on what you are trying to achieve but another site is Synopsis. This is a commercial product.
From their website:
Synopsis is a completely visual RAD tool for Windows that frees you from having to write textual code and learning unnecesary programming details. With Synopsis you can concentrate on creating software instead of wrestling with mundane and complex low-level development tasks.
The image below shows how this application looks:
(source: codemorphis.com)
Granted my knowledge on this subject is limited and I do follow this to see if something really powerful can be created. I did see a project on CodeProject or CodePlex that was written in C# that allowed VPL but I cant find that URL.
If I ever do find that application I will edit this post!
You haven't provided more information about features you expect from such a VPL environment, but I think that "Tersus" could be interesting thing to look at. There're many VPLs, but mainly they're targeted as educational tools or addition to particular technologies (i.e VPL for Microsoft Robotics Studio) to simplify common tasks programming. The "Tersus" is full blown application development platform. It's open source and free to download for many OSes.
http://www.tersus.com
Coherence — The Director’s Cut
The Coherence home page is up at http://coherence-lang.org. The submitted version of the paper is there, with a new intro and a surprise ending.
Coherence claims to be an experimental programming language, a continuation of Subtext using other means.
Intentional shipped, but they are still kind of alpha, with limited distribution and testing. You can make example driven DSLs, but I don't know if the environment itself works that way.
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3287
You could look at the work on eve that is happening too:
http://incidentalcomplexity.com/
Related
Where can I find the code for creating an online rebol console like the one here ?
http://tryrebol.esperconsultancy.nl/
Update: for the sandbox system on the server, can't Rebol manage it itself with some security wrapper and its security options ?
As for console itself, I don't know Ruby so I don't want to use TryRuby and why would I need it ? Can't I mimic Rebol console itself by "remoting" it somehow ? Why RT or Esper Consultancy can't make an opensource version ? There's no value in keeping it closed source. Rebol needs to prove it's more open than in the past.
In my opinion, you should aim higher with something like the already open-sourced Try Ruby. You'd type in expressions and it would guide you. Their showcase site is at tryruby.org and is fairly slick.
I modified TryRuby to work with Rebol and it wound up looking like this:
But I'm not going to run it on my server because I didn't want to belabor the necessary sandboxing/etc. or protections against someone running an infinite loop. I can give you what I've got so far if you want it.
I started a tutorial script here that no one seemed interested in helping me with, so I wandered off to other tasks:
http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Interactive_tutorial_script
I'm not sure what exactly you want. You mention you want a remote REBOL shell instead of a tutoring setup, but that's what the Try REBOL site is. There are several reasons it's not open source:
It's in heavy development. I'm currently changing the code regularly.
So it's not in a release state. Preparing it for release, documenting and publishing it would take a lot of extra work, as with most projects.
It's written in my CMS that's also in heavy development. Even if the Try REBOL site were open source, it wouldn't run. The CMS is not planned to be open sourced soon.
It's not meant as a generic REBOL remoting tool, but as a one-off demo site. If that site is running, what's the use of more of them?
As others have answered, there are many generic solutions for remoting that you could use. Also, most parts of the Try REBOL site are readily available as open source:
Syllable Server, produced and published by us.
The Cheyenne web server.
The HTML source of the web client can be viewed, including my simple JavaScript command service bus.
Syllable Server is an essential part of the site, as the sandboxing is not done with REBOL facilities (except some extra limits in the R3 backend), but with standard Linux facilities.
A truly air tight (do I mean silica tight?) sandbox is close to impossible with R2.
R3 (still in alpha) is looking a lot more promising. The deep technical discussions in flight right now (see Cure code and AltME/REBOL3 Proposals regarding unwinds and protect and even occasionally mentioning sandboxes should lead to an excellent sandbox capability.
Right now, the big advance R3 has that makes Kaj's tryREBOL possible is R3's secure policy settings which make it possible (with some careful wrapper code) to construct an alpha/demo sandbox.
To answer your precise question("where can I find code...", you could try asking Kaj for his :)
I'm new to StackOverflow. I'm not sure if this is going to end up as a reply to your comment, or as a new answer.
The somewhat common idea that any project can be open sourced and contributed to by others is a naive view. In the case of my Try REBOL site, it makes no sense. It's not just in heavy development; it's written in a CMS that's also in heavy development. Basically noone could contribute to it at this point, because I'm the only one who knows my CMS. Or in any case its newest features, which I develop by developing Try REBOL, and other example sites. So developing Try REBOL means developing the CMS at the same time, and by definition, I'm the only one who can do that.
More generally, my projects are bleeding edge, innovative technology with a strong vision. The vision is mine, and to teach it to others, I have to build it to show how I intended it to work. So there's a catch 22: to enable others to contribute, I have to finish my projects first, because people typically don't understand them until I show them how they work.
There certainly are other projects where mass contribution makes more sense. Still, only the top projects get the contributors. We found that out the hard way. We created Syllable Desktop and Syllable Server with surrounding infrastructure for contributions. These are fairly classic, well understood operating systems that many people could work on in parallel. However, despite years of begging, we get very few contributions.
So, if you feel a burning need to contribute to our projects, please pick one of the many tasks in Syllable to execute. :-)
This question is maybe somehow inspired with Anyone using Python for embedded projects?; so anyone using some Scheme version or Common Lisp (like ECL) for free/oss/commercial projects?
Personally, I used (and still using) TinyScheme for personal projects where some embedded language is needed, mostly due extremely easy embedding (sorry Python lovers, been there and that is quite painful, especially after I learned from TinyScheme how things can be simple).
The most prominent project I remember hearing about is (Gambit) Scheme on the iPhone. It was shut down by the user agreement for a while but I suppose with the new one, this kind of development is allowed again.
I don't see it on the page any more, but I remember a related blog post about interactive development on the iPhone using Scheme. Very exciting.
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 12 years ago.
This may be too opinionated, but what I'm trying to understand why some companies mandate the use of an IDE. In college all I used was vim, although on occasion I used netbeans for use with Java. Netbeans was nice because it did code completion and had some nice templates for configuration of some the stranger services I tried.
Now that my friends are working at big companies, they are telling me that they are required to use eclipse or visual studio, but no one can seem to give a good reason why.
Can someone explain to me why companies force their developers into restricted development environments?
IDE vs Notepad
I've written code in lots of different IDEs and occasionally in notepad. You may totally love notepad, but at some point using notepad is industrial sabatoge, kind of like hiring a gardener who shows up with a spoon instead of a shovel and a thimble instead of a bucket. (But who knows, maybe the most beautiful garden can be made with a spoon and a thimble, but it sure isn't going to be fast)
IDE A vs IDE B
Some IDE's have team and management features. For example, in Visual Studio, there is a screen that finds all the TODO: lines in source code. This allows for a different workflow that may or may not exist in other IDEs. Ditto for source control integration, static code analysis, etc.
IDE old vs IDE new
Big organizations are slow to change. Not really a programming related problem.
Because companies standardize on tools, as well as platforms--if your choice of tools is in conflict with their standards then you can either object, silently use your tool, or use the required tool.
All three are valid; provided your alternative doesn't cause other team-members issues, and provided that you have a valid argument to make (not just whining).
For example: I develop in Visual Studio 2008 as required by work, but use VS2010 whenever possible. Solutions/Projects saved in 2010 can't be opened in 2008 without some manual finagling--so I can't use the tool of my choice because it would cause friction for other developers. We also are required to produce code according to documented standards which are enforced by Resharper and StyleCop--if I switched to a different IDE I would have more difficulty in ensuring the code I produced was up to our standards.
If you're good at using vim and know everything there is to know about it, then there is no reason to switch to an IDE. That said, many IDEs will have lots of useful features that come standard. Maintaining an install of Eclipse is a lot easier than maintaining an install of Vim with plugins X, Y, and Z in order to simulate the same capabilities.
IntelliSense is incredibly useful. I realize that vim has all sorts of auto-completion, but it doesn't give me a list of overloaded methods and argument hints.
Multiple panes to provide class hierarchies/outlines, API reference, console output, etc.. can provide you more information than is available in just multiple text buffers. Yes, I know that you have the quickfix window, but sometimes it's just not enough.
Compile as you type. This doesn't quite work for C++, but is really nice in Java and C#. As soon as I type a line, I'll get feedback on correctness. I'm not arrogant enough as a programmer to assume that I never make syntax errors, or type errors, or forget to have a try/catch, or... (the list goes on)
And the most important of all...
Integrated Debuggers. Double click to set a break point, right click on a variable to set a watch, have a separate pane for changing values on the fly, detailed exception handling all within the same program.
I love vim, and will use it for simple things, or when I want to run a macro, or am stuck with C code. But for more complicated tasks, I'll fire up Eclipse/Visual Studio/Wing.
Sufficiently bad developers are greatly assisted by the adoption of an appropriately-configured IDE. It takes a lot of extra time to help each snowflake through his own custom development environment; if somebody doesn't have the chops to maintain their own dev environment independently, it gets very expensive to support them.
Corporate IT shops are very bad at telling the difference between "sufficiently bad" and "sufficiently good" developers. So they just make everybody do the same thing.
Disclaimer: I use Eclipse and love it.
Theoretically, it would decrease the amount of training needed to get an unexperienced developer to deal with the problems of a particular IDE if all the team uses that one tool.
Anyway, most of the top companies don't force developers to use some specific IDE for now...
I agree with this last way of thinking: You don't need your team to master one particular tool, having team knowledge in many will improve your likelyhood to know better ways to solve a particular roblems.
For me, I use Visual Studio with ReSharper. I cannot be nearly as productive (in .Net) without it. At least, nobody has ever shown me a way to be more productive... Vim, that is great. You can run Vim inside of Visual Studio + R# and get all the niceties that the IDE provides, like code navigation, code completion and refactoring.
Same reason we use a hammer to nail things instead of rocks. It's a better tool.
Now if you are asking why you are forced to use a specific IDE over another, well that's a different topic.
A place that uses .NET will use Visual Studio 99% of the time, at least that's what I've seen. And I haven't found anything out there that is better than Visual Studio for writing .NET applications.
There is much more than code completion into an IDE:
debugging facilities
XML validation
management of servers
automatic imports
syntax checking
graphical modeling
support of popular technologies like Hibernate, TestNG or Spring
integration of source code management
indexing of file names for quick opening
follow "links" in code: implementation, declaration
integration of source code control
searching for classes or methods
code formatting
process monitoring
one click/button debugging/building
method/variable/field/... renaming
etc
Nothing to do with incompetence from the programmers. Anybody would be A LOT less productive using vim for developing a big Java EE application.
How big were you projects at college? A couple of classes in a couple of files? Or rather a couple of hundreds of classes in a couple of hundreds of files?
Today I had the "honor" of looking at a file in a rather large project where the programmer opted to use vi (yes vi, not vim) and a handcrafted commandline compiler call (no make). The file contained on function spanning about 900 lines with a series of if-else-if-else-constructs (because that way you have all your code in one place!!!!!!). Macho-Programmer at his finest.
OK there are very good reasons for enforcing a particular toolset within a production environment:
Companies want to standardize everything so that if an employee leaves they can replace that person with minimal effort.
Commercial IDEs provide a complex enough environment to support a single interface for a variety of development needs and supporting varying levels of code access. For instance the same file-set could be used by the developer, by non-programmers (graphics designers etc.) and document writers.
Combine this with integrated version control and code management without the need of someone learning a particular version control system, all of a sudden IDEs start to look nicer and nicer.
It also streamlines maintenance of build systems in a multi-homed environment.
IDEs are easier to give tutorials to via phone or video, and probably come with those.
etc. etc. and so forth.
The business decision making behind enforcing a standardized environment goes beyond the preference of a single programmer or for that matter perhaps the understanding of the programming team.
Using an IDE helps an employee to work with huge projects with minimal training. Learn a few key combos - and you will comfortably work with multi-thousand-file project in Eclipse, IDE handles most of the work for you under the hood. Just imagine how many years of learning it takes to feel comfortable developing such projects in Vim.
Besides, with an IDE it is easy to support common coding standards across the entire team: just set a couple of options and an IDE will force you to write code in a standardized way.
Plus, IDE gives a few added bonuses like refactoring tools (especially good in Eclipse), integrated debugging (especially good in Visual Studio), intellisense, integrated unit tests, integrated version control system etc.
The advantages and disadvantages of using an IDE also greatly depends on the development platform. Some platforms are geared towards the use of IDEs, others are not. As a rule of thumb, you should use IDE for Java and .Net development (unless you're extremely advanced); you should not use IDE for ruby, python, perl, LISP etc development (unless you're extremely new to these languages and associated frameworks).
Features like these aren't available in vim:
Refactoring
Integrated debuggers
Knowing your code base as an integrated whole (e.g., change a Java class name; have the change reflected in a Spring XML configuration)
Being able to run an app server right inside the IDE so you can deploy and debug your code.
Those are the reasons I choose IntelliJ. I could go back to sticks and bones, but I'd be a lot less productive.
As said before, the question about using an IDE is basicaly productivity. However there is some questions that should be considered by the company when choosing a specific IDE. that includes:
Company culture
Standardize use of tool, making it accessible for all developers. That easies training, reduces costs and improve the speed of learn curve.
Requirements from specific contract. As an example, there are some development packages that are fully supported (i.e. plugins) by some IDE and not by anothers. So, if you are working with the support contract you will want to work with the supported IDE. A concrete example is when you are working with not common OS like VxWorks, where you can work with the Workbench (that truely is an eclipse with lot of specific plugins for eclipse).
Company policy (and also I include the restriction on company budget)
Documentation relating to the IDE
Comunity (A strong one can contribute and develop still further the IDE and help you with your doubts)
Installed Base (no one wants to be the only human to use that IDE on the world)
Support from manufacturers (an IDE about to be discontinued probably will not be a good option)
Requirements from the IDE. (i.e. cross platform or hardware requirements that are incompatible with some machines of the company)
Of course, there is a lot more. However, I think that this short list help you to see that there is some decisions that are not so easy to take, when we are talking about money and some greater companies.
And if you start using your own IDE think what mess will be when another developer start doing maintenance into your code. How do you think will the application be signed at the version manager ? Now think about a company with 30+ developers each using its own IDE (each with its own configuration files, version and all that stuff)...
http://xkcd.com/378/
Real programmers use the best tools available to get the job done. Some companies have licenses for tools but there's nothing saying you can't license/use another IDE and then just have the other IDE open to copy/paste what you've done in your local IDE.
The question is a bit open-ended, perhaps you can make it community wiki...
As you point out, the IDE can be useful, or even a must have, for some operations, like refactoring, or even project exploring: I use Eclipse at my work, on Java projects, and I find very useful to get a list of all occurrences of the usage of a public method or a class in a project. Likely, I appreciate to be able to rename it from where it is defined, and having all these occurrences automatically updated.
The fact I have the JavaDoc displayed when hovering over a name is very nice too. Like autocompletion, jump to a class name, etc.
And, of course, debugging facilities...
Now, usage of Eclipse isn't mandatory in our shop! Some years ago, some people used the Delphi IDE (forgot its name), I tried NetBeans, etc. But I think we de facto standardized on Eclipse, but it was a natural evolution rather than a company policy. And we often just open files in a text editor when we need a quick update...
I've enjoyed using the iTunes Store but I'm curious on what it was developed on (PHP & MySQL, Something Custom?).
WebObjects. It comes with XCode these days, but used to cost over $50 000! Not sure about the database backend. I seem to recall reading that it was Oracle, but I don't have a source and may have just accidentally made that up.
Joe Nuxoll former apple employee on the java posse pod cast has mentioned that they use web objects.
#Stephen Darlington is correct, it's WebObjects. The WO code generates pure Java, which is further optimized. The code has been rewritten a couple of times.
Interestingly, Dell's original BYO website was written in WebObjects, the $50,000 version back in 1996.
iTunes store is a mix of a lot of technologies, but the main one is Apple's WebObjects. WebObjects is rock solid java framework including a lot of mature technologies (templating, ORM).
WebObjects is free (correct me if i'm wrong), can be installed virtually on every platform and is not restricted on MacOSX.
WebObjects is mainly developped using eclipse and a plugin called WOLips.
There is a very active community behind this framework and the development tools.
Some links :
The official WebObjects community website
The WebObjects/Wonder/Wolips community wiki
yeah its webObjects, also you can use multiple database sources with WO and you can combine other languages with it such as JS and php
In reality webobjects has been overlooked for some time now, mainly because of its past price and that it has not been well marketed by apple
I think whatever answer you get will be 99% speculation. I would bet that if someone really did work for Apple and did have the facts they wouldn't be allowed to share them.
I've been making my way through The Little Schemer and I was wondering what environment, IDE or interpreter would be best to use in order to test any of the Scheme code I jot down for myself.
Racket (formerly Dr Scheme) has a nice editor, several different Scheme dialects, an attempt at visual debugging, lots of libraries, and can run on most platforms. It even has some modes specifically geared around learning the language.
I would highly recommend both Chicken and Gauche for scheme.
PLT Scheme (DrScheme) is one of the best IDEs out there, especially for Scheme. The package you get when downloading it contains all you need for developing Scheme code - libraries, documentation, examples, and so on. Highly recommended.
If you just want to test your scheme code, I would recommend PLT Scheme. It offers a very complete environment, with debugger, help, etc., and works on most platforms.
But if you also want to get an idea of how the interpreter behind the scenes works, and have Visual Studio, I would recommend Tachy. It is a very lightweight scheme interpreter written in c#. It allows you to debug just your scheme code, or also step through the c# interpreter behind the scenes to see what is going on.
Just for the record I have to mention IronScheme.
IronScheme will aim to be a R6RS conforming Scheme implementation based on the Microsoft DLR.
Version 1.0 Beta 1 was just released. I think this should be good implementation for someone that is already using .NET framework.
EDIT
Current version is 1.0 RC 1 from Oct 23 2009
Google for the book's authors (Daniel Friedman and Matthias Felleisen). See whether either of them is involved with a popular, free, existing Scheme implementation.
It doesn't matter, as long as you subscribe to the mailing list(wiki/irc/online-community-site) for the associated community. It's probably worth taking a look at the list description and archives to be sure you are in the right one.
Most of these are friendly and welcoming to newcomers, so don't be afraid to ask.
It's also worth searching the archives of their mailing list(or FAQ or whatever they use) when you have a question - just in case it is a frequent question.
Good Luck!
Guile running under Geiser within Emacs provides a nice, lightweight implementation for doing the exercises. Racket will also run under Geiser and Emacs, though I personally prefer Guile and Chez Scheme a bit more.
Obviously installation of each will depend on your OS. I would recommend using Emacs version 24 and later since this allows you to use Melpa or Marmalade to install Geiser and other Emacs extensions.
The current version of Geiser also works quite nicely with Chicken Scheme, Chez Scheme, MIT Scheme and Chibi Scheme.
LispMe works on a Palm Pilot, take it anywhere, and scheme on the go. GREAT way to learn scheme.
I've used PLT as mentioned in some of the other posts and it works quite nicely. One that I have read about but have not used is Allegro Common LISP Express. I read a stellar review about their database app called Allegro Cache and found that they are heavy into LISP. Like I said, I don't know if it's any good, but it might be worth a try.
I am currently working through the Little Schemer as well and use Emacs as my environment, along Quack, which adds additional support and utilities for scheme-mode within Emacs.
If you are planning on experimenting with other Lisps (e.g. Common Lisp), Emacs has excellent support for those dialects as well (Emacs itself can be customized with its own dialect of Lisp, appropriately named Emacs Lisp).
As far as Scheme implementations go, I am currently using Petit Chez Scheme, which is an interpreted, freely distributable version of Chez Scheme (which uses a compiler and costs money to obtain a license).