I want to complement these joy posts by my feelings
about junk languages. My programming experience
includes a wide variety from machine language, assembly
language, Fortran, and C going back to the 60's.

I call Perl, Python, and Javascript junk languages:
because programs written in these are unstable. Some
modification in these can cause a perfectly functional
program to stop working because of some change that
was not backward compatible.

I ran into this problem way back in the 70's when I
was running Fortran programs on CDC machines. One
day my Fortran programs would no longer compile because
CDC had updated their compiler. I had no recourse
other than tracking down every "error" and programming
around that. Do that with a program that ran to
20 boxes of cards.

Although Perl supposedly had an automatic method
for updating my Perl programs, it didn't work
for me and I just abandoned all the stuff that
I had written up to that time.

I am now running into these same problems with
javascript programs using jsdom. Junk.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 17:09:49 -0000 (UTC), root wrote:

> I call ... junk languages: ... programs written in these are unstable.
> Some modification in these can cause a perfectly functional program to
> stop working because of some change that was not backward compatible.
>
> I ran into this problem way back in the 70's when I was running Fortran
> programs on CDC machines. One day my Fortran programs would no longer
> compile because CDC had updated their compiler. I had no recourse other
> than tracking down every "error" and programming around that. Do that
> with a program that ran to 20 boxes of cards.

If Fortran can be a “junk language” by your definition, then so can any
language.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
> If Fortran can be a ???junk language??? by your definition, then so can any
> language.

It wasn't Fortran that changed, it was the CDC compiler.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 02:33:52 -0000 (UTC), root wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> If Fortran can be a “junk language” by your definition, then so can any
>> language.
>
> It wasn't Fortran that changed, it was the CDC compiler.

Why did you offer it as an example, then?

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 02:33:52 -0000 (UTC), root wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.] Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> If Fortran can be a ???junk language??? by your definition, then so can
>> any language.
>
> It wasn't Fortran that changed, it was the CDC compiler.

Was it nonconforming or prior to the ANSI standard? Over the years gcc has
become pickier about practices that weren't very good to start with like
assuming functions return an int unless otherwise specified or declaring
variables in header files.

On 11/19/24 12:09 PM, root wrote:
> I want to complement these joy posts by my feelings
> about junk languages. My programming experience
> includes a wide variety from machine language, assembly
> language, Fortran, and C going back to the 60's.

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY !!! :-)

These "Joy" threads seem to have REVIVED these
otherwise kinda dismal, under-posted, groups.

Remember when computer stuff was super-INTERESTING,
a PASSION maybe ? Well, the same stuff is STILL there,
it's just the crowd became kinda cynical.

FORTRAN, COBOL, ASM, BASIC, PASCAL, 'C' ... you
name it - there are a million ways to make it
all GOOD. SO many super-neato variants in How
To Do It.

OK ... never found any joy in ADA .... but that's
just me.

> I call Perl, Python, and Javascript junk languages:
> because programs written in these are unstable. Some
> modification in these can cause a perfectly functional
> program to stop working because of some change that
> was not backward compatible.

Ummmm ... I'd tend to disagree, esp with Python.

The main thing with Python was the v2 -> v3
transition. Even then it's usually not much
problem to translate a v2 to v3 app. They
PROMISE that p4 will almost entirely stick to
the p3 methods, just kinda pepped-up. It HAS
become an "all purpose" lang - kinda the "New
BASIC".

NEVER liked JS or Perl ... but that's just me.
Real-world, they seem to do their thing OK.

Almost always proto a new idea in Python now ...
and, if good, translate it into 'C' or even
Pascal. My old fave was/is Pascal - something
'poetic' about it.

> I ran into this problem way back in the 70's when I
> was running Fortran programs on CDC machines. One
> day my Fortran programs would no longer compile because
> CDC had updated their compiler. I had no recourse
> other than tracking down every "error" and programming
> around that. Do that with a program that ran to
> 20 boxes of cards.

Yep, been there ......

Langs/compilers have become kinda MORE "standard"
since those days. Sometimes still have to tweak
the defines a little, but LESS horrible.

> Although Perl supposedly had an automatic method
> for updating my Perl programs, it didn't work
> for me and I just abandoned all the stuff that
> I had written up to that time.

Perl smells like a camel's ass ... just no
reason for it.

> I am now running into these same problems with
> javascript programs using jsdom. Junk.

As said ... JS is kind of an ever-mutating
mess. IMHO, stay away from it as much as
possible. I suspect the ever-mutating aspect
is INTENTIONAL ... a 'make work' thing .....

Best to stick to 'C'. K&R can still tell you
almost everything you need :-)

Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed
in BASIC ? Should do a survey .....

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> NEVER liked JS or Perl ... but that's just me.
> Real-world, they seem to do their thing OK.

If JS or Perl are your yardstick for "never liked" you must never have
attempted to write an AutoHotKey script to automate something on a
windows machine.

The entire language looks like three shit-faced drunk language
designers teamed up with three stoned off their gourd language
designers and agreed to create the script language, and each put in
their own alcohol or mary jane fueled idea of how the language should
be designed.

There's absolutely no consistency in anything in that language. One
thing one has to pass around are WID's (Window ID's) so that the target
window which is to receive the "automation" is identified. Some
functions have prototypes like this (note, these are made up below):

getxy(wid, result)

Others have prototypes like this:

move_to_x_y(x, y, wid)

Others are this way

recolor-window(x, wid, y, color, result)

Still others use camel case

getSomethingFromWindows(result, a, b, wid, q)

Note now "wid" moves around in the prototype list, yet it is needed for
nearly every call. Also note the underscore vs. hyphen vs camel case
names.

On 20/11/2024 15:46, Rich wrote:
> The entire language looks like three shit-faced drunk language
> designers teamed up with three stoned off their gourd language
> designers and agreed to create the script language, and each put in
> their own alcohol or mary jane fueled idea of how the language should
> be designed.

Lol..

Ive worked on projects like that.
One guy would say function todosomething
Another would call it function To_do_something.
And the next it would be function toDoSomething

I'd call it function blat and leave a 20 line comment explaining what it
did.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500
"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do
> a survey .....

Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify
it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to
for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I
haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since
childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity
with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we
cross-posted over to a.f.computers...

On 20/11/2024 16:10, John Ames wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500
> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do
>> a survey .....
>
> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify
> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to
> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I
> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since
> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity
> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we
> cross-posted over to a.f.computers...
>
I've seen entire accounting systems written in it.
I gotr quite deep into it before discovering...

*Tada!*

....Z80 Assembler Which was fun, but slow..until
The C language. Still fun, but MUCH faster.

--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

On 2024-11-20, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500
> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do
>> a survey .....
>
> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify
> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to
> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I
> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since
> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity
> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we
> cross-posted over to a.f.computers...

The software I've been maintaining for 30 years was originally written
in (compiled) BASIC under MS-DOS (with an early prototype running on
an MP/M box). I translated the lot to C.

I still keep a copy of GWBASIC around for quick 10-line hacks.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Almost always proto a new idea in Python now ...
> and, if good, translate it into 'C' or even Pascal. My old fave
> was/is Pascal - something 'poetic' about it.

With MicroPython and AdaFruit's CircuitPython working with the Pico,
Arduoino Nano 33 and other Arm based microcontrollers is pretty easy. Of
more speed or precision on PWM and so forth is needed rewriting in Cosn't
a problem.

The same applies to the Raspberry Pi itself.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:10:39 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500 "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do a
>> survey .....
>
> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify
> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to
> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I
> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since
> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity
> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we
> cross-posted over to a.f.computers...

When the company I worked for bought an IBM 5120 I was drafted to develop
an inventory control system. The 5120 had two choices for languages, APL
and BASIC as well as a bastard offspring of RPG called BRADS which was in
BASIC.

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500
> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do
>> a survey .....
>
> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify
> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to
> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I
> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since
> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity
> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we
> cross-posted over to a.f.computers...

Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of
us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants
of "BASIC" that have existed over time.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:10:39 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> ... FreeBASIC is my go-to
> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life ...

No REPL? Even Perl and Python can offer that. Even the old-style BASICs
had something like that (immediate mode).

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:47:38 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:10:39 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>
> > ... FreeBASIC is my go-to
> > for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life ...
>
> No REPL? Even Perl and Python can offer that. Even the old-style
> BASICs had something like that (immediate mode).

Depends on the use case, but generally when I'm throwing together some
one-off utility or proof-of-concept I know about what I'm trying to do
and how I intend to structure the thing ahead of time, just from
thinking about the problem. From there, it's usually just a matter of
fleshing out the initial prototype and then throwing test cases at it
'til it stops exploding, and I don't often need a REPL for that.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 21:05 this Wednesday (GMT):
> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500
>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do
>>> a survey .....
>>
>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify
>> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to
>> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I
>> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since
>> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity
>> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we
>> cross-posted over to a.f.computers...
>
> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of
> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants
> of "BASIC" that have existed over time.

I haven't
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:47:38 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:10:39 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>>
>>> ... FreeBASIC is my go-to for hacking together quick utility
>>> applications in daily life ...
>>
>> No REPL? Even Perl and Python can offer that. Even the old-style BASICs
>> had something like that (immediate mode).

By the way, I don’t think Perl has a REPL. I think the term comes from
Lisp.

> Depends on the use case, but generally when I'm throwing together some
> one-off utility or proof-of-concept I know about what I'm trying to do
> and how I intend to structure the thing ahead of time, just from
> thinking about the problem.

I often don’t. Actually I don’t use a REPL much (beyond one-liners,
anyway). Jupyter notebooks give me a broader canvas for doing “scratchpad”
programming, as I am putting ideas together.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:30:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 21:05 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>
>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of
>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants
>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time.
>
> I haven't

You’re not missing anything.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:39:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vhlrv3$ahc9$3@dont-email.me>:

> By the way, I don’t think Perl has a REPL.

https://metacpan.org/pod/Perl::Shell

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"I can't hear you. There's a banana republic in my ear."

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:58 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:30:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 21:05 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>
>>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of
>>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants
>>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time.
>>
>> I haven't
>
> You’re not missing anything.

Good to know
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 21 Nov 2024 01:27:41 GMT, vallor wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:39:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vhlrv3$ahc9$3@dont-email.me>:
>
>> By the way, I don’t think Perl has a REPL.
>
> https://metacpan.org/pod/Perl::Shell

Happy to be proven wrong on that. ;)

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote at 21:05 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500
>>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ?
>>>> Should do a survey .....
>>>
>>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to
>>> qualify it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC
>>> is my go-to for hacking together quick utility applications in
>>> daily life, but I haven't touched old-school line-number
>>> spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since childhood, and certainly never built
>>> any application of real complexity with it. Bet more than a few
>>> people here have, though, especially if we cross-posted over to
>>> a.f.computers...
>>
>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one
>> of us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different
>> variants of "BASIC" that have existed over time.
>
> I haven't

Which would make you a member of the remainder of "nearly every" (which
does not encompass "all").

It would also imply that you /may/ be one of the younger members posting
in the group.

On 21 Nov 2024 01:27:41 GMT, vallor wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:39:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vhlrv3$ahc9$3@dont-email.me>:
>
>> By the way, I don’t think Perl has a REPL.
>
> https://metacpan.org/pod/Perl::Shell

"THIS MODULE IS HIGHLY EXPERIMENTAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

This module provides a lookalike implementation of a "command line
interpreter" for Perl, in the style of the Python equivalent.

This is part an attempt to make Perl more approachable (both in general
and specifically for Python programmers), partly an exercise to force
myself to explore Python's usability aspects, partly a way to provide
Strawberry Perl with a "Perl (command line)" start menu entry, and partly
as fodder for a funny lightning talk."

FEB 20, 2010 Always comforting. Did it ever happen? I reached retirement
age waiting for Perl 6.0. Only kidding. I'd switcher to Python by then.

I was disappointed when I went into the office to change my passwords
today. I vaguely remembered an O'Reilly book on Tkinter. So much for my
memory -- it was 'Mastering Perl/Tk'. I left it on the bookshelf with the
rest of the obsolete books. Even the C++ books bear little resemblance to
today's C++. I suppose that is one thing Perl 5 has going for it.

On 11/20/24 10:46 AM, Rich wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>> NEVER liked JS or Perl ... but that's just me.
>> Real-world, they seem to do their thing OK.
>
> If JS or Perl are your yardstick for "never liked" you must never have
> attempted to write an AutoHotKey script to automate something on a
> windows machine.

Tried a hotkey daemon once, DOS-era, but eventually
bought one writ by better programmers. Automated
Winders ... again a real pain in the ass. DOS was
better at that.

> The entire language looks like three shit-faced drunk language
> designers teamed up with three stoned off their gourd language
> designers and agreed to create the script language, and each put in
> their own alcohol or mary jane fueled idea of how the language should
> be designed.
>
> There's absolutely no consistency in anything in that language. One
> thing one has to pass around are WID's (Window ID's) so that the target
> window which is to receive the "automation" is identified. Some
> functions have prototypes like this (note, these are made up below):
>
> getxy(wid, result)
>
> Others have prototypes like this:
>
> move_to_x_y(x, y, wid)
>
> Others are this way
>
> recolor-window(x, wid, y, color, result)
>
> Still others use camel case
>
> getSomethingFromWindows(result, a, b, wid, q)
>
> Note now "wid" moves around in the prototype list, yet it is needed for
> nearly every call. Also note the underscore vs. hyphen vs camel case
> names.

I take it you're also not a fan of Perl :-)

Hey, working with X stuff you also need to identify
screens sometimes ... and they're not always readily
identified - <something>:2:2

There is a proliferation of computer langs. A LOT of
them seem just "unnecessary" - near re-do's of 'C'
for the most part ... just even weirder syntax to
justify their existence.