When you say really easy to code, do you mean REALLY easy? I ve never written anything in Java, but i have a little free time right now so i d be happy to contribute if i can.

Pierre

2010/5/22 chrism chris@mccormick.cx

On 22/05/2010, at 23:55, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:

...

On Sat, 22 May 2010, chrism wrote:

...

...

can you make a firefox plugin for loading pd externals in javascript ?

I'm sure you could.

btw, i mean the existing externals, *.pd_linux, *.pd_darwin.

that way, you wouldn't have to recode [+~] [*~] etc., because you could instead make a library packaging of all the classes that you can use as-is in the browser.

• I believe it would cost me more to make a C library of those objects and

a cross browser plugin to load them, than it would to recode them in Javascript.

• I believe that most browser plugins, including the existing Pd plugin,

don't seem to get as much use on the web in general as Javascript libraries, which don't require the user to perform the extra step of installing them.

• My main use-cases only require vanilla Pd objects (and right now, mainly

tilde objects).

...

then also, they wouldn't be running at javascript-rate.

I think we have different ideas about the meaning and implications of "javascript-rate".

Thanks for your thoughts.

Goodnight,

Chris.

---

Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Yep. Nicely said, a lot of people still make that confusion:

Java is a programming language, very mature and different from javascript which is a scripting language, after the ECMA standard (i.e.: other ecma is actionscript, now you know why they are so similar =P)

:D

what's the difference between a "programming language" and a "scripting

language" The truth is with the newest developments, scripting is of course gaining a new meaning. By old "meanings" a scripting lang would have usually characteristics like:

• being interpreted from source code (traditional langs are compiled as you

know)

• being separate components from main application and so forth (but this has

gradually changed nowadays!)

One does not usually call "shell scripting" "shell programming", simply because its interpreted scritps (like so many other langs), but OF COURSE when you're scripting your programming... :) It's an old "word/meaning" that induces some ambiguity.. true.

An interesting description could be borrowed Ousterhout from where he states: "they are intended primarily for plugging together components", but then again... they (scripting langs) have evolved so largely that they have surpassed that in many ways. But he was saying this in 98[1]... it is funny to see how it all evolved. There's another usual name for this "glue code" that some of my oldest teachers used to say in my first years of college, guess it traces back to this concept that "scripting langs" are just a part of the whole app. Nowadays you can pretty much do a lot with them... a lot...

[1] http://home.pacbell.net/ouster/scripting.html

ECMA is a rather large standards organisation and they do lots of things.

Indeed, but ECMA script is an ISO for defining languages too, I was talking about that.

Sun had attempted to get an ECMA JAVA standard done, but they changed their

mind. There's also >an ECMA standard for C# and for the C#-compatible version of C++, etc. True true, there's a lot of ecma compliant stuff out there, but still too esoteric for me because apart from AS and js haven't really learned any of them...

Sorry to mingle this sub-topic in such as interesting thread (kudos on the webpd), I'll shut myself for now... :)

best regards, Pedro

On Sun, 23 May 2010, Pedro Lopes wrote:

The truth is with the newest developments, scripting is of course gaining a new meaning. By old "meanings" a scripting lang would have usually characteristics like:

• being interpreted from source code (traditional langs are compiled as you know)

BASIC is a traditional language that is interpreted from source code (or from a kind of byte-jcode that is a simple search-and-replace on the source code). But as early as the eighties, there was a compiler for it.

LISP is a traditional language that is interpreted, yet became quite compiled as an option. It's quite notable as there is a full interpreter of itself in the standard library that can be used by compiled programs, at runtime (or compile time too).

• being separate components from main application and so forth (but this

has gradually changed nowadays!)

From what main application ?

One does not usually call "shell scripting" "shell programming", simply because its interpreted scritps (like so many other langs),

What is usually called "shell" is a series of programming languages that were born with the initial goal of providing a main interface to the OS and thus have a special focus on managing other programs.

but OF COURSE when you're scripting your programming... :)

No idea what that means...

An interesting description could be borrowed Ousterhout from where he states: "they are intended primarily for plugging together components",

Most any programming language is about plugging together components. a function is a component, a variable is a component, an object is a component. (nothwithstanding the specific use of the word made for "component-based programming"). The size and complexity of components alluded to in the sentence "they are intended primarily for plugging together components" is only there to say that real tough code is made in real tough languages and that for the wimpy stuff you can use wimpy languages.

There is a very relevant discussion to be made about how Pd fits in all of this, if it is to be considered as a "scripting language".

but then again... they (scripting langs) have evolved so largely that they have surpassed that in many ways. But he was saying this in 98[1]...

So what ?... I've seen a lot of Tcl apps in 1997 and most of them didn't have to do with being the house pet of a Real Application. It's ok to have people like Ousterhout talk about why they first invented a language, but in many cases it doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the thing, and you can see that by how quickly its users can ignore the original intent. Ousterhout was writing with his own vocabulary about a reality that it wasn't fitting in.

He even confused strong typing with an API design that happens to not care for concise application code, lack of default args, lack of keyword args, etc.

I used to think that this article is really mind-blowing, but that's because I was a teen undergrad who was in the process of switching from DOS to UNIX. Nowadays I have trouble reading it because it makes me want to rewrite the article.

Then maybe the whole thing was just a plot to popularise alternate languages with a crowd of programmers that had pretty narrow views about what constitutes a Real Programming Language. That's how one needs to start to distinguish between Programming and Scripting.

it is funny to see how it all evolved. There's another usual name for this "glue code" that some of my oldest teachers used to say in my first years of college,

The concept of "glue code" is as ill-defined as the concept of "pseudo code"... vague ideas based on impressions and on language politics. "pseudo code" usually meant anything that looked like C, PASCAL and all the competing languages of the time, usually made with a syntax slightly different from anything in order to avoid favorising any language over the other. It was a kind of neutral ground for sharing research in a fragmented world of dozens of languages and dozens of CPU models. As such, "pseudo code" was a political game. Now, I suppose you can imagine too a politically-defined concept of "glue code"...?

True true, there's a lot of ecma compliant stuff out there, but still too esoteric for me because apart from AS and js haven't really learned any of them...

ISO-9660 (CD-ROM filesystem) is a well-known ECMA standard but it is not well-known that it's an ECMA standard. It was first defined by ECMA then adopted by ISO.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801

On Sun, 23 May 2010, Pedro Lopes wrote:

Its just definitions that get caught up in "trends". There's a perfect portuguese idiomatic expression for that, that would loosely translate into "mouth-to-mouth definitions" - whereas a concept gets standardized without any formal foundations or efforts but because of heavy community use

That's an important concept and I am glad that you wrote it down.

It can explain a lot of things... especially the big mess made with words like "technology" and "art".

As for pseudo-code, when in first years of college that really striked me. The definition of it was supposed to strive for a language-free syntax, but it always looked C to me - so I guess that's true for your argument as "political bargain".

Well, to be more complete, there are other varieties of pseudo-code with different syntaxes, which led an undergrad student to tell me that Python is executable pseudo-code. AFAIR, the indentation syntax of Python comes from a certain variety of pseudo-code that already existed. In general, pseudo-code also has an aim of being more abstract and concise than actual C/PASCAL code, which is often the goal of "scripting languages".

That was a few years after a fellow undergrad student (at a different university) told me, very lucidly : « Now I understand what is pseudo-code. It's code that doesn't work » (loosely translated from French). That's because pseudo-code is designed to be non-runnable.

The article I quote was not showing a correct view but more like "where does this "trend" comes from"... (and by trend I mean the segmentation/naive classification of scripting langs vs. others).

ah ok.

...

LISP is a traditional language that is interpreted, yet became quite compiled as an option. It's quite

Of course, I use compiled LISP on a regular basis :)

But I mean that LISP was interpreted in its original implementation. (this postdates the original LISP spec by a few years, which was designed as a spec for a special-purpose pseudo-code. against the will of the author, his students turned LISP into a runnable language and made it possibly the first interpreted language ever...)

LISP is also quite hard to classify in one bucket of languages. You can use it as a test of adequacy of a language classification : where do you put LISP in it, and why ? Thus it's also a great way to destroy unnecessary distinctions in how we call the languages, which is why I mention it.

its nice nice to share some feelings/opinions on this subject, I strongly feel that it has become a "buzz" word, rather than something people have strongly defined

the concept of buzzword isn't opposed to strongly-defined concepts, but the process of "buzzing" does add a layer of connotations and myth around the core concept, in a way that can be quite misleading. with great popularisation of a concept, comes a great misunderstanding of the concept. It isn't as bad a hype, though, because mouth-to-mouth definitions are still more accurate than anything designed by a salesman with the only goal of making a product (or service) look good.

I was saying (and thinking): "When you are scripting you are programming, and vice versa" - so where's the line separating scripting/programming languages? Is there any need for a line? Do we gain to have such differentiation? Define them... and so on.

ah, alright.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801

That was a few years after a fellow undergrad student (at a different university) told me, very lucidly : « Now I understand what is pseudo-code. It's code that doesn't work » (loosely translated from French). That's because pseudo-code is designed to be non-runnable.

i thin k YOU fa.i.l.ed in that case and not your student hihi

sevil