[chuck-users] wishlist for the new year

[Stefan Blixt]

I think I'm going to add trying to understand the major benefits of dynamic
typing and closures/lambda to my wishlist for the new year (I feel old every
time I read stuff like this... I just see hard-to-read and hence unmanagable
code as being the result). Mike or anyone, do you have any pointers to good
articles explaining this?

Anyway, on my wishlist is a facility for easily writing your own UGen code
in ChucK. Maybe some system for making dynamically linked libraries that
could be included into the ChucK VM?

Happy ChucK Year Everyone!

/Stefan

2010/1/10 mike clemow <michaelclemow at gmail.com>

> I see, yes.  Would this essentially give us something like a dynamically
> typed Chuck?  I would love that...  but I think that we're going to get
> serious resistance from the devs on this one.  I think you're right,
> though.  If we had a better type system, then none of this kind of stuff
> would be such a hurdle to get over.
>
> I personally, really appreciate what LiCK does for Chuck, but I think it's
> a lot of boiler plate to write, when having a more flexible language
> implementation / type system would allow us to avoid all that.
>
> -mike
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Hans Aberg <haberg at math.su.se> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jan 2010, at 22:38, mike clemow wrote:
>>
>>  You are sort of reinventing the wheel, or at least (Standard) ML, here.
>>>> See
>>>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML
>>>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29>
>>>>
>>>
>>>  We're not reinventing the wheel so much as exploring how certain
>>> features might be added to the Chuck language--features that appear in many
>>> other languages (JavaScript, Haskell, Python, and ML too).  I mean, LISP did
>>> this stuff before any of the others...
>>>
>>
>> I just meant that the things you are experimenting with have already been
>> done - there would be problem to add it. Easier. :-)
>
>
>> One needs to figure out how to add a type system. But if one scraps the
>> Hindley-Milner type system, at least in the global form it appears in SML
>> and Haskell, there would be less of a problem.
>
>
>>
>>  I think it's great to look at the way other languages do things as
>>> examples, but we're not about to re-make the Chuck system using Haskell
>>> syntax or LISP, or ML.  It's highly likely that Chuck will get new features,
>>> but the ones it gets will be the ones that seem most important to the devs
>>> and the community, I suppose.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I treated the actual syntax as irrelevant - it should of course be
>> ChucKish, but what works can be found out when plugging into the .y grammar
>> file. So I thought of x |-> f or \x -> f or fn x => f or (lambda x f) as
>> merely different ways to say the same thing.
>>
>> One can in Haskell use a syntax closer to your:
>>
>>  bing :: Num a => a -> a -> a
>>  bing b = funk
>>    where funk i = b + i
>> It says essentially the same as
>>
>>  fun fun int bing(int b) {
>>     fun int funk(int i) { return b+i; }
>>     return funk;
>>  }
>> though strictly speaking, the return type is "fun int (int)" or something.
>>
>> The problem is probably not adding functions as objects, but finding a
>> good type system, especially when polymorphy is added.
>>
>>
>>  Hans
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://michaelclemow.com
> http://semiotech.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
>


-- 
Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20100111/a241faf2/attachment.html>