[gameprogrammer] Re: Daydreaming, questioning....

  • From: Bob Pendleton <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:50:05 -0500

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Charlie Lobo <charlie.lobo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'd also look into this newfangled OO thing people talk about.
> Agents seem to be a pretty reasonable way to think of parallelism, and the
> issues of a typing system that doesn't give preference to native types seems
> reasonable.

I agree completely.

Bob Pendleton

>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Mostly Scala and F#, but with an eye on Haskell as well.
>>
>> I work on IT, and these are the languages that might eventually win the
>> hearts of some programmers.
>>
>> Personally I would like that Scala gets ahead, specially because I am a
>> Java/Python programmer by
>> day.
>>
>> But the ML syntax has a special place on my heart, which leads me then to
>> F# and Haskell, because
>> my university used to have lots of classes that required the use of Caml,
>> which made the syntax stick to
>> my brain. Not sure if that is so positive. :)
>>
>> So regardless of what some people might think of Microsoft, and their
>> dubious actions from time to time,
>> I do appreciate the effort they are doing with F# and Haskell to make
>> functional programming more mainstream.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paulo
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Bob Pendleton <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > Hi Bob,
>>> >
>>> > those sound really nice ideas.
>>> >
>>> > I tend to think that many people still live on the stone age of
>>> > computing by
>>> > restraining themselves to C or
>>> > similar languages.
>>> >
>>> > I rather get myself productive in a higher level language and only
>>> > recode in
>>> > low level language like C, the
>>> > application parts that really need it. Sometimes the speed of the
>>> > application is good enough and no part
>>> > gets rewritten.
>>> >
>>> > Personally I am spending my hobby programming time with functional
>>> > languages, that are seeing a renaissance
>>> > with the availability of multi-core.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Which ones? I played with several back in the early '80s.
>>> And if you count Lisp among them then I was doing Lisp going back to
>>> the early '70s. The fact is that most of my best ideas are stolen
>>> directly from functional languages, the concept of actors, and good
>>> old communicating sequential processes. The rest are based on watching
>>> humans, from second graders to post docs, from newbies to seasoned
>>> software engineers, trying to write code without going nuts.
>>>
>>> Bob Pendleton
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Good luck for your project, you have quite a few nice ideas.
>>> >
>>> > Paulo
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "First off, the majority of languages (I almost said *all* but I do
>>> >> not
>>> >> know *all* languages) were designed around the idea that resources are
>>> >> scarce"
>>> >>
>>> >> "I want message passing and
>>> >> multithreading to be so intrinsic in the language that you get them
>>> >> without even thinking about it."
>>> >>
>>> >> Honestly i was thinking "great, yet another language!" when i started
>>> >> reading but your ideas are interesting and i think there's some good
>>> >> potential here (:
>>> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Bob Pendleton <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks to everybody who replied. I haven't replied because I figured
>>> >>> I
>>> >>> needed some time to let my fevered imaginings simmer down.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm going with the language #4 plus muxing in some of #5.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A bunch of you expressed interest in helping with the stonewolf
>>> >>> programming language. So, I'm going to post my thoughts on the
>>> >>> subject
>>> >>> here and see what you folks think about what I want to do.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> First off, what am I thinking about, why do I think we need a new
>>> >>> language? There are lots of reasons. Most of them are outside of what
>>> >>> is IMHO the "normal" way of looking at programming languages.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> First off, the majority of languages (I almost said *all* but I do
>>> >>> not
>>> >>> know *all* languages) were designed around the idea that resources
>>> >>> are
>>> >>> scarce. Think about C and C++. C was designed in the '72 and C++ was
>>> >>> designed starting in '79. In '79 I bought 16 kilobytes of ram for my
>>> >>> 2
>>> >>> megahertz z80 for $110 which is $327 in 2009 dollars. In '72 I could
>>> >>> not afford to buy 16KB of ram. It was too expensive.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> OTOH, a little over a month ago I bought 4 gigabytes of RAM for $50.
>>> >>> That 2009 $50 has the same buying power as $9.68 in '72 and $16.82 in
>>> >>> '79 (we had a lot of inflation during the '70s).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What is my point? Those two languages were designed when a megabyte
>>> >>> was a *huge* amount of memory. In the '70s the hacker slang for a
>>> >>> megabyte of RAM was "moby" as in the great white whale. The basic
>>> >>> assumption forced on language designers was that memory was scarce
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> expensive. The same goes for processors. My aging AMD 64 dual core
>>> >>> processor has more computing power than was available from all the
>>> >>> computers on my university campus combined. The computer graphics
>>> >>> chip
>>> >>> on my mother board was literally science fiction in the '70s. Top of
>>> >>> the line multimillion dollar graphic displays were used in the 1982
>>> >>> movie "Wrath of Kahn". Right now you can get better graphics
>>> >>> technology for $10 in the discount bin at Goodwill.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Another scarcity assumption drove the complete separation of
>>> >>> C/C++/Java from their libraries. C was designed for embedded systems,
>>> >>> telephone switches, where you could not assume that you would have a
>>> >>> keyboard, or a disk, so all I/O was removed from the language. The
>>> >>> same happened for things like the math library. In the bad old days
>>> >>> only expensive mainframes (multimillion dollar machines) had floating
>>> >>> point hardware. Even some of the biggest supercomputers didn't have a
>>> >>> hardware floating point divider. You kept as much out of the language
>>> >>> as possible because a runtime library couldn't add more than a few
>>> >>> kilobytes to user programs if you expected the programs to fit in
>>> >>> memory. Now days I can have hundreds of megabytes of runtime library
>>> >>> and it won't affect my ability to run a program. In the future I can
>>> >>> have a multigigabyte runtime and not worry about it at all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Even though languages like Java and C# were designed much later they
>>> >>> carry forward a bunch of the assumptions of scarcity found in older
>>> >>> languages like C and C++.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The result of these assumptions is that programmers have to spend a
>>> >>> great deal of time worrying about things like "does the interface use
>>> >>> and int16 or an int32?". Why should I have to do that? Why not just
>>> >>> be
>>> >>> able to use a "number"? Why should I care how it is represented? I
>>> >>> want to break all the assumptions I see built into these languages.
>>> >>> Why did I have to write my net2 library? Why shouldn't a modern
>>> >>> language just support asynchronous network IO the way it supports
>>> >>> doing a floating point divide?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ok, a bunch of you just went Huh? what about efficiency? Well the way
>>> >>> I see it is we will have at least two levels of programming going on.
>>> >>> Just like we currently do with game engines. One level of programming
>>> >>> worries about making things super efficient so the game runs fast
>>> >>> enough, these are the engine programmers. The other level are the so
>>> >>> called scripters. These are people who actually write the game but
>>> >>> they do it in a language like Lua or Python that is embedded in the
>>> >>> game engine. The scripters don't have to worry so much about the
>>> >>> efficiency of their code because it is all written to use highly
>>> >>> efficient code that already exists. If the scripters need a new
>>> >>> feature they don't usually write it in the scripting language, they
>>> >>> get someone else to write it in a language like C++ and add it as an
>>> >>> interface that they can use.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> One way to think of it is to think of a language with all the parts
>>> >>> (and much more) of a game engine built into the language rather than
>>> >>> having a language built into a game engine. I really want a lot more
>>> >>> than that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What I want is a language that is designed to make use of massive
>>> >>> amounts of memory and hundreds or thousands of hardware threads that
>>> >>> contains all the libraries I am likely to ever need and the ability
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> easily integrate libraries I didn't imagine I would ever need.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Yeah, but what about efficiency? Let's define language efficiency as
>>> >>> the amount of your life you have to spend to write a program a
>>> >>> complete program. Or, as the ratio of the number of programs you can
>>> >>> write in a year using different languages. If I can write one major
>>> >>> program a year in C, and 1.5 per year in C++ then I want to be able
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> write 10 in Stonewolf. Which would make Stonewolf 10 times more
>>> >>> efficient in terms of my life span than C. (BTW, if Stonewolf
>>> >>> actually
>>> >>> lets me get to 3 I would consider it a wonderful achievement.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I also want to get as far away from C based syntax as I can without
>>> >>> creating something worse. I want control structures that can be
>>> >>> automatically converted into high level parallel code. I want to make
>>> >>> executable code a true full fledged data type so it is easy to
>>> >>> replicate it across a "cloud" and to make it part of a class in a
>>> >>> database. I want unicode to be built in from the beginning and not
>>> >>> tacked on as an after thought. I want message passing and
>>> >>> multithreading to be so intrinsic in the language that you get them
>>> >>> without even thinking about it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, that is what I want, what do you think?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ok, I thought I would start out with a fevered rant and see what kind
>>> >>> of a reaction I get. I have actually been writing a speculative
>>> >>> specification in fits and starts for 5 or 6 years. I'm holding off on
>>> >>> posting any of that because I want to get other people thinking about
>>> >>> all this without tainting your imaginations.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Currently I'm messing around with what I call plumbing code just
>>> >>> trying to see what I can do to make it fit into a Unicode world. I
>>> >>> haven't found a suitable parser generator, I'm real picky about error
>>> >>> reporting and recovery, so I'm planning to just do a hand coded
>>> >>> recursive descent parser. And, I'm committed to using C++ as the
>>> >>> implementation language. Lots of good reasons for using C++. The best
>>> >>> one being that C++ makes a great extension language for Stonewolf.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bob Pendleton
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Sami Näätänen
>>> >>> <sn.ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > On Thursday 17 September 2009 20:00:59 Bob Pendleton wrote:
>>> >>> >> Ok, so I'm sitting here thinking about what I am going to work on
>>> >>> >> next. Right now I am finishing up work on atomic ops for SDL 1.3
>>> >>> >> and I
>>> >>> >> have promised to work on multiple device handling for SDL 1.3 on
>>> >>> >> Linux. (it is sort of messed up right now.) But, that won't take a
>>> >>> >> lot
>>> >>> >> of time, I hope, so I'm thinking about new projects. So, I thought
>>> >>> >> I
>>> >>> >> would ask what you folks thought about some ideas and see if maybe
>>> >>> >> y'all could make some suggestions?
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> In no particular order....
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> 1) Write the space war game I always wanted to write. Yeah, that
>>> >>> >> one,
>>> >>> >> or is it three? No, I think there are least 20 games in that bag.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> 2) Write yet another 3D drawing/layout program. This would be the
>>> >>> >> kind
>>> >>> >> of program you need for drawing 3D items and doing level layout
>>> >>> >> and
>>> >>> >> design. Trouble is there are a million of these. Reason for doing
>>> >>> >> it:
>>> >>> >> I've never seen one that took less than *months* to learn to use.
>>> >>> >> Or,
>>> >>> >> they only run on Windows or Mac so I've never tried them :-).
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> 3) Build a planet sim so you can create game worlds without having
>>> >>> >> to
>>> >>> >> do it by hand. This one popped out while I was thinking about #1.
>>> >>> >> I
>>> >>> >> spent a lot of time learning just how hard it is to subdivide a
>>> >>> >> sphere. Spheres are really nasty.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> 4) Stonewolf, the programming language:  I have started at least 8
>>> >>> >> times to develop a language designed for multimedia apps whose
>>> >>> >> design
>>> >>> >> is aimed at the future, not the past. Designed for 64 bit address
>>> >>> >> spaces, terabyte disks, and hundreds of cores. I have settled on
>>> >>> >> the
>>> >>> >> name, Stonewolf. Two things that a language needs are a cool name
>>> >>> >> and
>>> >>> >> a developer with a beard. Seriously, look it up. All the cool
>>> >>> >> languages were developed by people with beards. The name is
>>> >>> >> important
>>> >>> >> too. Consider that three of the greatest languages in the history
>>> >>> >> of
>>> >>> >> computing, Lisp, Scheme, and Smalltalk, were all pretty much
>>> >>> >> killed by
>>> >>> >> their names. No real programmer wants to spend all day lisping,
>>> >>> >> scheming, or making smalltalk.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> 5) Spend the time meditating, reading sutras, and practicing Kung
>>> >>> >> Fu.
>>> >>> >> At least I would feel a lot better :-)
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Except for #5, I would, of course, blog writing and otherwise make
>>> >>> >> lots of noise about what I was doing.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Comments? Flames?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Well I would do 4th first.
>>> >>> > Then use it to do 1st and give the first try for the language (As a
>>> >>> > proof that
>>> >>> > it is complete).
>>> >>> > Now it is time to do the 2nd and 3th in parallel using Stonewolf of
>>> >>> > course.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Oh and mux some 5 to the whole period to balance everything.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > PS. I would like to help as much as I can manage in that language
>>> >>> > design and
>>> >>> > development.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > ---------------------
>>> >>> > To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> +-----------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> + Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
>>> >>> + email: Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>> + web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ---------------------
>>> >>> To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------
>>> + Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
>>> + email: Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> + web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
>>>
>>> ---------------------
>>> To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com

---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gameprogrammer
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2009