I've been looking to evaluate the red programming language - red-lang.org
While it is nice that you can obtain a working executable easily I prefer to compile things from source. It is less obvious how to do that for red.
The instructions ask you to download a rebol compiler/intepreter which is itself just an executable.
If you do that it works but it screams "don't do that" very loudly.
rebol> do/args %red.r "-v 2 %tests/hello.red"
will compile hello world but how do you bootstrap the red compiler itself?
1. Assuming you have rebol how do build the 'red' executable?
aside: Are the authors aware that there is a program called 'red' installed on many Linux boxes already (a version of the ancient ed program)?
I thought this might be done by:
rebol> do/args %red.r "-r %environment/console/console.red"
but "console" is not the executable also known as 'red' it doesn't support the same commmand line options such as -c to compile.
2. Assuming the proper way to do this involves bootstrapping from rebol (rather than C or something else) how do you build (a suitable) rebol from source?
I would like to build both red and red/system or any other interesting variants.
This question mentions a youtube video but is there something written down somewhere?
This seems like the sort of thing than ought to be near the front of the documentation to me.
I asked a similar question in their Google Group about a year back.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/red-lang/zZ3jEeNJ5aI
The short answer is this ...
The current “bootstrap” Red compiler is written in Rebol. Rebol is not compilable. The downloadable Red binaries are not compiled but encapsulated (containing both the compiler and a Rebol executable) using the Rebol Software Development Kit (SDK). The Rebol is SDK is a commercially licensed product that is probably not available any longer. (The REBOL SDK used by the Red team is properly licensed).
There are scripts and instructions on how to build a Red binary at https://github.com/red/red/tree/master/build
That said anything you can compile with the Red binary, you can compile with the source compiler. The source compiler is just as fast as the “binary” one. (As you know, the source compiler happily runs under free Rebol versions that are still easily available.) In fact, the red team uses the source compiler not the “binary” one.
So until the self-hosted Red compiler is available, there are two basic options:
if you want to use the Red binary, get it from the automated builds
if you want the absolute, up to the minute compiler, use it in source form.
Hope this helps.
Peter
Messing around trying to create a simple dice roll program got most of it working but 1 part requires the output of the number rolled I looked up a tutorial and it said that all I had to do was put the variable name followed by a underscore (D_) I’ve tried it but it comes up as a syntax error the programming language the calculator uses is casio BASIC.
Use locate X,Y,D, where D is the dice number
I've set up a project to use Coverity Scan.
Under Analysis Settings→Project Components I have
Component name Pattern Ignore in analysis
cxxopts .*/src/cxxopts.hpp Yes
STL /usr/include/c++/.* Yes
but still when I go to View defects I see 9 issues, all from files like /usr/include/c++/5.4.1/functional. How do I actually exclude them?
Confusingly, the Overview tab shows
12 Total defects
2 Outstanding
7 Dismissed
3 Fixed
even though View defects shows 9 issues (is that the 7+2? Why are some outstanding and some dismissed, when all should be ignored?)
It looks like a regex pattern, in which case the "++" likely needs some form of escaping. I'm not sure which form, because I don't know how the strings are being interpreted or what kind of regex syntax is being used, but some variant of the following should work:
/usr/include/c\+\+/.*
/usr/include/c\\+\\+/.*
/usr/include/c\\\+\\\+/.*
If none of these work, I'd suggest contacting scan-admin#coverity.com (listed as the contact email for questions on the scan website).
This would also explain why the overview shows results from these files at all.
I have a project with a large codebase, where newer modules are being added in Swift 3, but most of the code is in Objective C. Like many projects, our Swift style uses 2 spaces for indentation. The legacy Objective C codebase, however, uses 4 spaces.
Is there any way in Xcode 8+ to configure indentation on a per file type basis? If not, is there a better alternative to:
Converting all Objective C files to use two spaces.
Impose the Objective C 4 space style on Swift code due to Xcode limitations.
Both of the above seem like bad ideas, but without Xcode support for per file type configuration, there seems to be no other way.
To answer your question of:
Is there any way in Xcode 8+ to configure indentation on a per file type basis?
Yes, there is. On the File Inspector of each file, you can set the Indent type to Spaces or Tab and also the number of spaces.
I have attached the screenshot here:
You can select multiple file and update the settings at the same time. The settings here will overwrite what you have set in the Preferences > Text Editing > Indentation.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Is there any visible progress? Is it now just an academic exercise? Do you believe Perl will continue to evolve with or without Perl 6 or will soon be forgotten?
At the risk of sounding like a Perl fanboy, I'm still excited about Perl 6 and feel like the end result will be relevant when it's released. The last nine months have yielded some nice accomplishments on the Parrot front () and have even resulted in some sizable donations to help fund increased development.
From a recent blog post:
Rakudo currently supports arrays, hashes, classes, objects, inheritance, roles,
numeration types, subset types, role composition, multimethod dispatch, type checking, basic I/O, named regular expressions, grammars, optional parameters, named parameters, slurpy parameters, closures, smart match, junctions, and many other features expected from Perl 6.
Keep your eye on Rakudo.org (Rakudo is the name of the Perl 6 implementation built on top of Parrot) for news on the ongoing development process of Perl 6.
You should not forget that Perl 5 is being developed in parallel. 5.10 was out not so long ago with new features and additions to the language.
Progress on Perl 6 is slow but steady, PUGS (Perl 6 over Haskell ) has been stalled for a while but Audrey might resume workingon it soon. In the mean while Rakudo (Perl 6 over parrot) is progressing well. Here is a post detailing various implementations progress
Realistically I would not hold my breath for it but no matter how late it will be I think when it comes out it will still be relevant.
Perl 6 is evolving slowly but steadily. Larry Wall wrote a Parser that can parse all Perl 6 that we know of (which is basically the test suite plus a bit of other code). Rakudo, which is Perl 6 on Parrot, also performs nicely. You can track its progress in the test suite with the charts on rakudo.de
Note that it's a radically new language, and not trivial to implement. I don't expect a usable version before next year, and even then it will take quite some time for any implementation to become as mature as Perl 5 is today (which has had 20 years to develop a stable code base).
There is plenty of visible progess. chromatic posts the minutes from the weekly Parrot/Perl 6 conference call to Use.perl and rakudo.org each week, you can read Jonathan Worthington's journal, or Patrick Michaud's journal, or the various Perl 6 mailing lists. As Mortiz points out, you can see the daily state of the test suite.
Recent developments include Larry Wall's finishing off the work to specify the complete grammar, the Rakudo developers adding pre-compiled module support, and Jonathan's multi-level dispatch work.
It's certainly easy to follow the progress, but you probably already knew that you could easily use Google to find out ("perl6 progress" leads to good resources). Perhaps you had another question though, or just want to kick the hornet's nest?
Please see the Official Perl 6 Wiki to find the latest information:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6
The latest headlines from 2 leading Perl 6 blogs are shown at the bottom of the official Perl 6 wiki home page.
There's lots of other useful information and links there.
For example, recent Perl 6 articles and presentations:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_articles_and_presentations
The Parrot VM for dynamic languages (to be used by Rakudo/Perl 6) also has an official wiki:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot/index.cgi?parrot
Parrot is multi-lingual, so Perl 6 will be able to call modules written in other Parrot languages, and other Parrot languages will be able to call Perl 6 modules compiled to Parrot.
Unlike Perl 5, which is defined by its reference implementation, Perl 6 is defined by its test suite. So there will eventually be other versions of Perl 6 that don't run on the Parrot VM.
Perl 5 is still evolving. Perl 5.10 was a major recent release, which (among many other improvements) also had a few Perl 6 related features. Perl 5.12 is under active development (as Perl 5.11).
Perl 5.12 will have support for calling (and for being called by) Perl 6. Perl 6 should be able to compile the great majority of Perl 5 code -- this is a major priority.
Please see the Official Perl 5 Wiki to find the latest information:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?perl_5_wiki
Perl 6 is moving along nicely. Perl 6 is a bit unlike previous Perl's in that Perl 6 is actually a language specification not an implementation of it. The reference implementation on top of Parrot that is the main thrust of the Perl 6 project has been renamed Rakudo and is moving along nicely. The best place I've found for news about it is http://planetsix.perl.org/. Currently, as far as I understand it, most of the important features of the language are implemented and they are fleshing out the rest and writing tests. You can download it and test it out a bit. The easiest way seems to be the cygwin version which has been bundled up and made into a cygwin package.
There is now a roadmap for parrot at least.
There is also a website that tracks the number of tests that the Rakudo implementation passes.
(source: rakudo.de)
The ability to target other languages to the parrot vm, will make it trivial to make a product using what ever languages you are comfortable with.
List of languages with recent activity, or at least tested with latest parrot (as of 2008/09/22):
taken from languages/LANGUAGES_STATUS.pod
APL
bf
Cardinal (Ruby)
Chitchat (Smalltalk)
Cola (Java)
Common Lisp
Eclectus (Scheme)
ECMAScript
HQ9+
Jako (C/Perl)
JSON
lazy-k
lolcode
Lua
Parrot m4
Markdown
NQP (Not Quite Perl)
Rakudo
Pheme (Lisp-2 compiler inspired by Scheme)
Pipp (Pipp is Parrot's PHP)
PJS (wiki)
Punie (Perl1)
regex
Squaak (Squaak is not Squeak)
partcl (TCL)
unlambda
WMLScript Translator
Perl 5 will continue to be wonderful and available even if Six never comes to fruition. Six invigorated Perl 5, and Perl 5 continues to experience many wonderful new things, such as Moose.
I think Perl 6 will be completed some day and will be good, but for now, I'm a Fiver, and I'm happy like that.
To the comment that it didn't start until 2005... I suppose it depends on if you count Parrot as Perl6. The original team did, but we didn't get buy in from the "Perl6 Language" folks for years.
We were doing real work on Parrot in 2000-2004 and much of the VM groundwork was there. By 2002 we had continuations, co-routines, a JIT, an intermediate compiler and a dozen languages besides Perl6, including a BASIC interpreter written in Parrot's PIR. By then we could compile and run pretty much any sort of language in the world, short of highly concurrent languages, and our capability far exceeded the needs of Perl6 for an implementation platform.
The VM itself has been capable for years. Perl6 as a language is a different story since it is a very complex beast to parse. That has no reflection on Parrot. It is simply a reflection on the culture of Perl and it is why the rise of other scripting languages has accelerated and Perl5 is in decline and people who once chose Perl5 for new systems implementation moved to Ruby, Python and Groovy, and languages like Java and C# evolved frameworks that make a heavy use of reflection for runtime dispatching.
As much as I love Perl, if a language is so difficult to implement that a production quality compiler cannot be written in less than a decade, something is wrong! C++ is easier to parse and was implemented in a fraction of the time of Per6. That should tell us something. Derek Jones writes in his blog "The Shape of Code" that C++ may have gotten "Too Big to Fail" (http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2008/12/c-goes-for-too-big-to-fail/). C++ can afford to do that since it got successful first before it got big. Perl6 may be "Too Big to ever Succeed" because the scope was so grandiose that the project has trouble retaining contributors due to the fact that the attention span of the typical contributor is probably 2-3 years, not 10.
I feel like some good things may come from Perl 6 (e.g. parrot), but I'm not counting on ever doing anything with the language.
In the bioinformatics development group where I work, we're encouraging use of Python for new development where Perl would have been the language of choice in the past. Python appears to provide a better path forward for us.
Slow and late. It has a terminal case of second system disease. When I was a Perl hacker (back in the day), they had been working on Perl 6 for two years. That was 6 years ago. You could build a whole operating system in that time.
It'll be out by Christmas. ;-) I've heard on podcasts that there there will be some kind of alpha before this Christmas. They were explicit about that but it has been a while since I heard that.