I like to write code using org-mode and ob-racket. It works quite well for my purposes (mostly pragmatic scripting and solving code challenges as I slowly learn the patterns of this cool language). I am trying to understand language creation and a limitation is that ob-racket as is will only ever generate a single file for me, yet every example of creating a custom language I can find (largely just Beautiful Racket) uses separate files for the language definition and its usage.
I would assume - this being lisp after all - that it is possible to define a custom reader and/or a custom extender and then use them all in the same file. Can someone give me an example of how to do this or is it not doable?
Related
Here are already several questions in SO about the safe template languages, like:
Safe ERB Language?
templating system that is safe for end users to edit
Is there a “safe” subset of Python for use as an embedded scripting language?
Is Django's templating markup for views safe for end user editing like rails liquid templating
but the above questions are for asp, ruby, python.
My question is: What templating language can allow to be edited by users in perl based web-app?
I want allow for users edit pages, (like in an wiki) with some programming possibilities, so full featured mean with cycles, conditionals, variable substitutions, includes and so on.
Is TT "enough safe"? Is here another solution as TT?
Template::Toolkit Should be fine, as long as you limit what parameters are passed to the template. If you pass classes, the templates will be able to call any method on those classes, and any method on the return values of those classes, etc. It's much better to only pass Hashes.
HTML::Template Is also a good option, and it only allows hashes by default, so you are much less likely to leave open a hole that lets the template authors execute arbitrary code.
In either case, make sure that you read the documentation for whatever you use, and clean the output in order to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. Do not rely on people customizing the templates to get the output encoding correct for you.
Paul Graham writes:
For example, types seem to be an
inexhaustible source of research
papers, despite the fact that static
typing seems to preclude true macros--
without which, in my opinion, no
language is worth using.
What's the big deal with macros? I haven't spent a whole lot of time with them, but from the legacy C/C++ I've worked with they appear to be mostly used as a hack before templates/generics existed.
It's hard to imagine that
DECLARELIST(StrList, string);
StrList slist;
is somehow preferable to
List<String> slist;
Am I missing something?
Then there's the usage as a pseudo-function, like MAKEPOINTS:
POINTS MAKEPOINTS(
DWORD dwValue
);
Why not define it as a function instead? Is this some optimization, where you avoid code duplication without having the added overhead of another stack frame?
Then there's also tricky control flow things involving GOTO, which seem to be of dubious value.
What's so great about macros? They're less type safe (in C and C++) (right?). Why won't Paul Graham program without them?
LISP macros are an entirely different beast. C/C++ macros can merely replace a piece of text with abother piece of text using an extremely basic language. Whereas a LISP program is (after "reading") is a LISP data structure and can therefore be manipulated using the whole language.
With such macros, you could (given you're a really clever hacker) vastly extend the language and everybody could use it relatively easily, since you did it with macros. Take for example the the Common Lisp Object System. At its core, the language has nothing even remotely like objects. It is entirely implemented in the language itself, including a relatively simple syntax for use - using macros.
Of course macros are less necessary when the language has most things you'd every want built-in. OTOH, the LISP fans are of the opinion that a sufficiently simple language (LISP) with sufficiently powerful metaprogramming capabilities (macros) is better since new concepts can be incorporated into the language without changing the spec or working implementations. But the most compelling example for macro usage is the DSL area. Ruby on Rails and others show every day how useful DSLs can be. Yes, Ruby doesn't have macros, it just exploits how much Ruby syntax can be bent. In other languages, or when even Ruby's syntax isn't flexible enough, you need macros or a fully-blown parser/interpreter to implement a complex DSL.
Macros are really only good for two things in C/C++, and should generally be the tool of last resort (if you can accomplish something without using macros, do so).
Creating new syntactic structures or abstractions that do not exist in the language.
Eliminating duplication, especially between things that must be in sync with each other.
It's almost never to use a macro as a function.
You also have to realize that LISP macros are not C/C++ macros.
If you port code over from one language to another, how can this be detected?
Say you were porting code from c++ to Java, how could you tell?
What would be the difference between a program designed and implemented in Java, and a near identical program ported over to Java?
If the porting is done properly (by people expert in both languages and ready to translate the source language's idioms into the best similar idioms of the target language), there's no way you can tell that any porting has taken place.
If the porting is done incompetently, you can sometimes recognize goofily-transliterated idioms... but that can be hard to distinguish from people writing a new program in a language they know little just goofily transliterating the idioms from the language they do know;-).
Depending on how much effort was put into the intention to hide the porting it could be very easy to impossible to detect.
I would use pattern recognition for this task. Think about the "features" which would indicate code-similarities. Extract these feature from each code and compare them.
e.g:
One feature could be similar symbol names. Extract all symbols using ctags or regular expressions, make all lower-case, make uniq sort of both lists and compare them.
Another possible feature:
List of class + number of members e.g:
MyClass1 10
...
List of method + sequence of controll blocks. e.g:
doSth() if, while, if, ix, case
...
Another easy way, is to represent the code as a picture - e.g. load the code as text in Word and set the font size to 1. Human beings are very good on comparing pictures. For another Ideas of code Visualization you may check http://www.se-radio.net/2009/03/episode-130-code-visualization-with-michele-lanza/
I have recently started following the examples from The Little Schemer and when trying out the examples in DrScheme, I have realised that there are some minor syntax changes from the examples in the book to what I can write in DrScheme.
First of all, as a language in DrScheme, I chose Pretty Big (one of the Legacy Languages).
Is this the correct choice for trying the examples in the book?
As regards the syntax changes I have noticed that, for example, I need to prefix the identifiers with a ' in order for them to work.
For example:
(rember 'jelly '(peanut butter jelly))
Are there any more changes (syntactical or not) that I need to be aware of when trying the examples from the 'The Little Schemer' book ?
IIRC, the book uses a different font for quoted pieces of data, and in real Scheme code that requires using quote. As for your use of PLT Scheme -- the "Pretty Big" language is really there just as a legacy language. You should use the Module language, and have all files start with #lang scheme (which should be there by default).
(The "new" way of using different languages in DrScheme is to always be in the Module "language" and specify the actual language using a #lang line.)
See the "Guidelines for the reader" section in the Preface. (I'm looking at the 4th edition here.)
I recently downloaded PLT Scheme and DrScheme. When I open DrScheme, I am told to choose a language. However, I'm not familiar with any of my options, and the help guides don't really break it down to help me easily choose which choice.
So, first - is DrScheme and PLT Scheme really the tools I need to learn Lisp and/or Scheme? If so, what are the different languages and which one(s) should I be using?
Just go for "Pretty Big". That will be all you need until you know what the rest are for. I find that R5RS is good, but it does lack the extensions that PLT has added to DrScheme.
edit: I just checked and I guess that both "Pretty Big" and "R5RS" are considered "legacy" in DrScheme 4 and the "Module" language is favored instead. Just make sure that all the files you use with the Module language start with
#lang scheme
Module is a way to specify the language used in the source file rather than globally by the DrScheme interpreter. This means that you can use different languages for different parts of your program by breaking it up into files and indicating in each file the language you're using. If you're just starting out, all you need to worry about is just keeping #lang scheme at the top of all the files you use.
A small note - this declaration is not official Scheme, and needs to be removed if you attempt to use the files in another Scheme interpreter.
Standard (R5RS) is the actual thing so that would be your best bet
i learnt it from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
used MIT Scheme while doing that
but otherwise i find plt a lot nicer to work with