Hang on. I imagine that it's very friendly to someone who is not a
working programmer :)
Yeah, I can see that. :-)
And I will also stipulate that some of my
problem may be with the documentation, but seriously how can a
language where I can't allocate an array who size is only known at
run-time be called friendly?
Well, you can define a length zero array, then do lots of generative stuff while growing it by appending to it. Sadly that is not in the manual, you are right about that. It's just in the VERSIONS file and the examples directory.
Having said that, I do rather like ChucK. It just feels about half-finished.
Absolutely, that's because it is. :-)
Will do. And thanks for the tip.
Cool! :-)
Well the second most obvious one is having to list all the files
needed on the command line :)
Well, files can call files but I think you mean dependencies. we need those, Ge mentioned plans for those, I'm not sure how far along those are.
Strict file scope for variables, but not
for classes is another annoyance. No object constructors feels
dangerous, especially in light of a deeply inherited class hierarchy.
Yup, the whole class thing is basically a place-holder to get by until a more serious system is in place. We also need a more convenient way of having global objects.
All of which are not really show-stoppers. But the array thing has me
generating code in Scheme to run under ChucK.
That's quite interesting. I'd like to know how that works. I also think it would be useful to outline how you would like things to be. We have a shortage of development time here but I think one of the most important things we also need is ideas on extending everything in a way that stays coherent. I see a big role for that on the list.
Those aren't wholy my ideas, BTW, that's just a re-phrasing of the invitations scattered through the docs.
I actually find most of ChucK's innovations (the timing constructs and
shreds) to be fairly nice. It's the stuff around the edges which makes
me nuts.
Oh, yes,some bits are infuriating.... The workarounds for public objects, the issues around the edges of the type system, etc. I agree. These are known issues, I don't think anyone likes them.
Brill!
If you are planning serious work on some part it might be good to communicate on the dev-list to avoid clashing fixes. Some people might already be working on aspects of arrays as there has been a series of bugs involving arrays loosing track of object types, for example.
> dislike ChucK and come from a Scheme background C++ may not be your idea of
> fun. I'm not sure anybody thinks C++ is great fun.
I don;t. But I've been getting paid for it for 20+ years (ick! ick!
ick!). I feel competent to deal with nearly anything in C++.
Ah, ok, I didn't know. I thought you might have a allergy to curly braces, like some people seem to have. I'm sorry, it's hard to address relative strangers on these matters when you don't know their background.
I noticed that despie your competence you still didn't refer to "fun" ;-)
I'm not planning to chuck out the baby just yet :)
Yay!