Name: Anonymous 2010-09-15 21:22
MANY OF TODAYS SOFTWARE-TECHNOLOGY IS IN FACT USELESS.
SO I THINK TO REWRITE IT - MAY LISP HELPS ???
#V0.1
some facts about me:
- i like the freedom & flexibility of low-level-hardware-languages (e.g.
DATA-I/O ABEL, VHDL), where you can define the instructions of the
micro-processor-core that you design.
[but this languages have annoying redundancies, irrationales that i
cannot workaround]
- i like the freedom & flexibility of RISC-asseblers, combined with the
ease of MAKRO-Assembler, wher i can build my own Complex-Instructions.
- i like "C"
- i love "C++"
what are common to all those different languages?
redundancies, inconsistencies, inperfection, limitation [...]
So i look only a little at JAVA, as it would disapoint me, too.
Disapointment starts with VisualBasic, 10 years ago, tuching its limits
after a few weeks. Cannot make this, cannot get this, take this
assembler-module so you can modify you arrays like that.
Same thing for C++. I cannot work like i want to work. Inconsistent
desing of the language drives me crazy when analyzing indeep.
Why?
An analytical brain with high tendencies to "normalize" works like a
machine, detecting the "wrong" trying to move it to the status "right".
That brain uses something to encode its output. In software-developement
this is usually a programming-language & some tools.
"wrong" is annoying, and so brain thinks all the time about "how i can
modify the "wrong" (of the language/tools) to make it "right" ".
So, many workarounds. But no access to the compiler-cores, to the
language-cores. disapointing conditions.
Someone says: "Take GNU C++ and modify"
Another says: "Write your own"
Yes, seems a solution.
But! May LISP helps ???
I need (language, tools, vendor):
LANGUAGE
- Object-orientation
- consistent straight-through design of the language
- A language-core, that can be extended & modified
- those extensions must be supported by the debuggers & other tools
- easy interoperability with other languages (C++, JAVA)
- easy to modify, if possible on runtime
- easy binding to OODBs
TOOLS
- easy interoperability with other tools
- highly extensible, configurable
- Graphical Modeling, based on standards (UML)
- Graphical Modeling, based on own rules
- compileable to Executable file for major machine/OS types
- Some kind of copy-protection, if code is interpreted
- easy OO GUI
- available for different operating-systems
- transparent and changable bindinds to todays technologies (CORBA etc.)
VENDOR
- fixed rate commercial licence (not binded to no. of end-product licences)
- quick & easy service-system (especially for providing bug-fixes)
- if possilbe, open-source (partially or fully).
So.
MAY LISP HELPS ???
SO I THINK TO REWRITE IT - MAY LISP HELPS ???
#V0.1
some facts about me:
- i like the freedom & flexibility of low-level-hardware-languages (e.g.
DATA-I/O ABEL, VHDL), where you can define the instructions of the
micro-processor-core that you design.
[but this languages have annoying redundancies, irrationales that i
cannot workaround]
- i like the freedom & flexibility of RISC-asseblers, combined with the
ease of MAKRO-Assembler, wher i can build my own Complex-Instructions.
- i like "C"
- i love "C++"
what are common to all those different languages?
redundancies, inconsistencies, inperfection, limitation [...]
So i look only a little at JAVA, as it would disapoint me, too.
Disapointment starts with VisualBasic, 10 years ago, tuching its limits
after a few weeks. Cannot make this, cannot get this, take this
assembler-module so you can modify you arrays like that.
Same thing for C++. I cannot work like i want to work. Inconsistent
desing of the language drives me crazy when analyzing indeep.
Why?
An analytical brain with high tendencies to "normalize" works like a
machine, detecting the "wrong" trying to move it to the status "right".
That brain uses something to encode its output. In software-developement
this is usually a programming-language & some tools.
"wrong" is annoying, and so brain thinks all the time about "how i can
modify the "wrong" (of the language/tools) to make it "right" ".
So, many workarounds. But no access to the compiler-cores, to the
language-cores. disapointing conditions.
Someone says: "Take GNU C++ and modify"
Another says: "Write your own"
Yes, seems a solution.
But! May LISP helps ???
I need (language, tools, vendor):
LANGUAGE
- Object-orientation
- consistent straight-through design of the language
- A language-core, that can be extended & modified
- those extensions must be supported by the debuggers & other tools
- easy interoperability with other languages (C++, JAVA)
- easy to modify, if possible on runtime
- easy binding to OODBs
TOOLS
- easy interoperability with other tools
- highly extensible, configurable
- Graphical Modeling, based on standards (UML)
- Graphical Modeling, based on own rules
- compileable to Executable file for major machine/OS types
- Some kind of copy-protection, if code is interpreted
- easy OO GUI
- available for different operating-systems
- transparent and changable bindinds to todays technologies (CORBA etc.)
VENDOR
- fixed rate commercial licence (not binded to no. of end-product licences)
- quick & easy service-system (especially for providing bug-fixes)
- if possilbe, open-source (partially or fully).
So.
MAY LISP HELPS ???