Re: scripting/extension ... [off topic]

[Ray Blaak <blaak@infomatch.com>]

"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes:
> I have invented, pretty well in my head, an Application eXtension System:
> AXS (pron. 'axis').
> 
> It's not a language. The idea is that every element that would make up a
> traditional script program (large or small) is replaced, in essence, by a
> dialog box, that garners the necessary information for the element, and
> which simply invokes further dialogs for component elements.

Go for it. I know I dislike such systems since I am a code person, but enough
people might find it useful.

> I think I'm touching on something that Dr Robert Leif has being saying
> recently (about XML having great importance for the future of programming
> languages). There are some well-argued advantages to using XML for this sort
> of purpose (one of the most obvious being the flexibility in formatting and
> presenting printouts, but it goes much deeper than that).

XML is great for portable communication and persistence formats. I would hate
to be forced to use it to express a program, however. Its just too much work,
with too many tools between me and the real code. 

The main advantage I see to using XML for describing a language (given that
any language would already have a standard syntax) is that one can instrument
the code with additional information (formatting hints, proof results,
documentation, associated test cases, change histories, etc.) in a clean way
that is amenable to processing by other tools.

> However, touching on the mention of Scheme in this thread (am I imagining
> that?), it seems to me that languages such as LISP and Prolog could be very
> readily used in place of 'traditional' script languages.

I was mentioning scsh, the Scheme Shell, which is based on Scheme48. Scheme
has nice built-in extensibility mechanisms that lend themselves well to to
these kind of problems.

> It's strange, but I'm beginning to get a more concrete sensation that the
> days of 'programming', as such, are not so far from being over as many of us
> would prefer to think. It's an old idea (dating back to the sixties);
> computers are nearly getting to the point where they are actually powerful
> enough (while remaining affordable) to realise the dream.

Computers are getting more powerful, but we will still program, but just at
higher and higher levels. When (not if) things break, we will need to be able
analyze and adjust software at arbitrarily low levels.

I know I am continually disappointed by new CS grads who know how to use the
latest component tools, but have little understanding of underlying mechanisms.

> Maybe the little chip in The Terminator's* head isn't all that far away
> after all :-o

At the risk of starting a whole new thread, not a chance :-). We (as in
humans) haven't really got a clue how to do real AI at all.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
blaak@infomatch.com                            The Rhythm has my soul.