Cω
research.microsoft.com
research.microsoft.com
"Cω is an experimental research language. There are no plans to turn it into a commercial language supported by Microsoft. It is not supported by either the C# or the Visual Studio teams. There are no plans to integrate it into any product."
I guess people working in research enjoy the leeway of being able to name their projects any way they want.
Wikipedia has this issue solved. You can use any Unicode character in their titles and they get used as the stub by escaping those characters. Anyway, it's not like the whole world only uses the English alphabet. This should be handled properly.
Far better to type C♯. Or, if you're the one naming a new language, to look for a better name.
PS. She is from the UK.
.NET is the same, although probably more difficult to grep for.
Insert rant about cultural imperialism here.
mb:~ doug$ perl -e "if ('ω'=~/\w/) {print \"It IS a word character.\";} else {print \"Maybe my language settings?\n\n\";}" $ perl -E'say "ω is " . "not "x("ω" !~ /\w/) . "a word"'
ω is not a word
$ perl -Mutf8 -E'say "ω is " . "not "x("ω" !~ /\w/) . "a word"'
Wide character in print at -e line 1.
ω is a wordAs you demonstrate correctly, you need to tell Perl about the encoding of your script (and thus the literals in your script). `use utf8;` or at the command line `-Mutf8` does that.
Anyway, this project is long dead as far as I know, although much (but far from all) of it was incorporated into C#.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_uncountable_ordinal
basically going as far as possible in the sequence C, C++, ...
The wikipedia page I referenced, loosely summarized, is referring to an ordinal number with the cardinality aleph-1. The plain omega that I should have referenced has cardinality aleph-0.
Unfortunately, the ordinal I wanted does not have its own wikipedia page. WTF? Merely countable is not notable enough?
In my font, it's wide enough to be a Unicode ass.
I'm curious how they see themselves relative to the capabilities of languages like Scala.
And that's in spite of the fact that I recognized that it was a lowercase omega, not a funny-looking w.
Does it get much usage?
Most XML access is delegated to tools these days, and SQL is so familiar (and type-based access so unfamiliar), that it seems unlikely to make inroads on either - nor offer substantial practical benefits. That is: no order-of-magnitude benefit to overcome barriers to adoption.
Have you personally found LINQ beneficial? Has it been widely adopted? Why/why not, do you think?
I think you mean "using" and in which case I assume you're saying it would be the only way to do it effectively but that the results might be hard to apply in practice and no one else has managed to do it so far?
If you meant "building" then I'd have to say you meant "you wouldn't learn anything as it's about applying knowledge, an engineering task, and not about learning.
Perhaps I misunderstood, it's late and I have had a drink ...
No. It is (was, actually) a research project, not a widely available general-purpose language, so python wins on most measures of being-something-ness, which I think is a pre-requite for being better.
Some of the ideas in it have already fed into c#, especially into LINQ. That was its job. Now, you can compare Python to C# 3.5 or later with LINQ, but that's a different kettle of subjectivity :P