Re: update processor question

art wrote:
And .net syntax is clear? (Sorry Tony, I couldn't resist! :-))

A joke is only funny if it makes sense. There is no such thing as
..NET syntax. To which of over 30 languages might you be referring?
..NET is a framework with thousands of classes that include functions
for database access, communications, file and stream IO, XML, code
generation, and other functions. On that framework companies build
their own frameworks for business rules, workflow, and other data
manipulation. There are two frameworks for development in the world
today, .NET and JEE (Java). Since JEE only has one language, that
framework is defined by its syntax. Not so with .NET. The only
syntax common to a lot of .NET code is that of Object Oriented
Programming, where syntax is required to denote methods and properties
of objects - but that has nothing to do with .NET itself as any OOP
developer will confirm, and again this is language-specific and has
nothing to do with the framework itself.

Now given all of that, there is one language with syntax that could be
a little confusing. According to the overview for Ook# .NET, "The
syntax only contains one word, namely Ook, but pronounced in different
tones and emotions it can have a different effect." (Technically Ook!
on which Ook# is based has 1 instruction but 3 syntactical elements.)
The language was developed specifically for orangutans. See here for
more info:
Ook#: http://bluesorcerer.net/esoteric/ook.html

If you have problems with Ook# you might want to start with a simpler
language like Brainf*ck .NET which has 8 instructions. You'd think 1
would be easier than 8 - YMMV. Or maybe the more procedural Ook!
would be to your liking (link in above page).
Brainf*ck: http://bluesorcerer.net/esoteric/bf.html

Converters are available for Brainf*ck to Ook# and back if you really
need one or the other. Interpreters for Ook! are available in Ruby,
Python, Perl, and others.

This is a Hello World example in Brainf*ck.
>+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]
<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-]<.#>+
++++++++++[<+++++>-]<.>++++++++[<+++>-]<.+
++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-]<+
.[-]++++++++++.
A Hello World example in Ook# is provided below. Other languages with
interesting syntax can be found here (not .NET, sorry):
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/

HTH
T
Coming soon from Nebula R&D: Brainf*ck BASIC for MV
From our web page:
"The only Brainf*ck you'll ever want or need" (tm)

Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook?
Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook?
Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook?
could be more elegant [TG]
Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook.
Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook
Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook. Ook? Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook? Ook.
Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.
Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook.
Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook!
Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.
Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook!
Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook!
Ook! Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook.
Ook! Ook.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: C++CLI and STL.NET and clrsafe
    ... > syntax every version, incompatibilities, framework issues, installation ... > issues, framework security patches, getting farther abstracted from what's ... market your language to management, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: the Java Lang will support Properties in Futuere?
    ... then you use the method syntax. ... Currently Java supports having properties with a dot syntax by dint of public instance variables, something that is conventionally regarded as anathema. ... in other languages they are a language construct that defines the members as a pair of methods. ... More generally, the entire framework of data binding in .NET, a broadly supported and used feature in a wide variety of applications, relies on properties to do a lot of the heavy-lifting. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: What are your favorite Ruby features?
    ... object-capability based security ... a framework for GUI applications and an IDE built with ... instead pixel screens and Unicode and that programming language ... syntax should reflect that (e.g. Ruby's syntax was essentially ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: C as a Platonic pathology
    ... necessary condition for being a compiler. ... is "translate from one computer language to another". ... int t ... Ook. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Lisp at sexps length
    ... > Compare this situation to the failure probabilities of a RAID-0 array. ... > figure out the meaning, and the more places there are where you can get ... but language ook so reliable ook can ook some words and still ook ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)