GUI Examples – Rye Language
ryelang.org
ryelang.org
Get words are `?word` instead of Rebol's `:word` because that's left-set-word, we don't have refinements and scoping / contexts work somewhat differently. There are probably other differences in details, but all basic concepts are based on Rebol.
The rye version looks much nicer both to read and write.
We don't have a tutorial about this. In Rye this is still partially open to experimentation. If in Rebol dialects were the most interesting part. Rye also has multiple dialects, but I think in Rye contexts (scopes) are the most interesting aspect of the language.
In very short. Code is always evaluated inside a specific context. This also determines what certain words mean (from "core" words, like if, for, fn, ... up). Contexts can be linked together (you can define a parent context), created, manipulated, isolated at runtime. We have functions like do\in do\par(ent) and also fn\in and fn\par that evaluate code in context you provide. Lookup for a word happens in current context and then if not found in it's parent contexts if there are any. This is lookup ... "read" operation, but you can change (set or mod) only words in a current context. There is no syntax to change a value in parent or sub-context (there is no global context). You can call functions in (send messages to) contexts in your view and convention is if functions change values in-place their name must end with !.
That is current idea in very short, but this is all still open to be tested in practice and potentially changed.
- Definitional Scoping / Rebol actually does not have scoping at all - https://stackoverflow.com/q/21964110/12195
- Bindology - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rebol_Programming/Advanced/Bin...
What exactly do you mean by LiveView?
[0] https://hexdocs.pm/phoenix_live_view/Phoenix.LiveView.html
Edit; Blazor server[3] is another one
[0] https://laravel-livewire.com [1] https://github.com/jfyne/live [2] https://github.com/rabbibotton/clog [3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/blazor/hosting...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31788824
They do keep actively moving forward so I have hope this will get addressed.
I was a little discouraged by "everything is a string" idea so far, but I keep hearing that it is conceptually very interesting language.
independent of 'everything is a string', tcl also works much better as a command language than 'real programming languages' do; contrast
ifup eth0 -ip 192.168.2.53
ifup('eth0', ip='192.168.2.53')
the rebol family seems like an improvement over conventional programming languages there, but at the cost of conceptual simplicity
wrt guis in particular the ability to edit the gui without restarting it is pretty great. but this is a suboptimal way to edit it:
.qd.ipentry configure -textvariable ip
(edited to clarify)
Rebol went the opposite way for somewhat similar effect. It famously had (I think) 37 datatypes and a lot of them were also syntax types, like email, url, IP also I think. So your example could be something like this in Rebol:
ifup/ip 'eth0 192.168.2.53
Granted, programming in the large in Tcl requires discipline and a good set of tools. (I used the Snit object framework, with SQLite as a data store.)
As for command languages: yes, this is where Tcl really shines; nothing else is as good.
compare†:
: ~; time tclsh <<<'proc fib {n} { if {$n < 2} {return 1} else {return [expr {[fib [expr {$n - 1}]] + [fib [expr {$n - 2}]]}]}}; puts [fib 35]'
14930352
real 0m8.351s
user 0m8.346s
sys 0m0.004s
: ~; time luajit -e 'function fib(n) if n < 2 then return 1 else return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) end end print(fib(35))'
14930352
real 0m0.127s
user 0m0.122s
sys 0m0.004s
: ~; time bash -c 'fib() { if [[ $1 -lt 2 ]]; then result=1; else local arg=$1; fib $(($arg - 1)); local tmp=$result; fib $(($arg - 2)); result=$(($tmp + $result)); fi; }; fib 35; echo "$result"'
14930352
real 8m24.591s
user 8m24.412s
sys 0m0.028s
that doesn't mean you can't write large, successful applications in tcl, even without any c extensions! a core i7 is about 17000 dhrystone vax mips http://www.roylongbottom.org.uk/dhrystone%20results.htm while a pentium 166 was about 270 mips. so anything you could do with usable performance on a pentium you can do, with enough discipline, in pure tcl. it'll probably be a lot quicker to write than pentium assembly, too. and things like arrays (hash tables), regular expressions, sqlite, tk, etc., are of course enormously faster on a current computer, and you have a thousand times as much ram to play with and probably an ssd
but you probably don't want to write your fractal renderer or real-time raytracer in tcl. by contrast, i've done both of those successfully in lua with luajit: https://gitlab.com/kragen/bubbleos/blob/master/yeso/mand.lua https://gitlab.com/kragen/bubbleos/-/blob/master/yeso/sdf.lu...
in terms of command languages, what do you recommend for getting good tab-completion in tcl? i don't know of any good options but that doesn't mean there aren't any; it probably just means i'm ignorant
______
†before wduquette's very helpful correction, I had:
: ~; time tclsh <<<'proc fib {n} { if {$n < 2} {return 1} else {return [expr [fib [expr $n - 1]] + [fib [expr $n - 2]]]}}; puts [fib 35]'
14930352
real 0m59.757s
user 0m59.736s
sys 0m0.004s
Without the braces, the expression gets parsed twice, once as Tcl syntax and once as Tcl `expr` syntax. Luajit is still going to be faster, but Tcl will do better than what you're showing there. (Not bracing expressions is the most common reason by why Tcl code runs slowly.)
In terms of tab-completion, you have to roll your own; and if you're trying to do it in the console, you're going to need to write your own REPL: the standard `tclsh` doesn't even have "readline" editing.
Back when I was doing Tcl regularly, I wrote a Tk "terminal" widget, and all my Tcl/Tk apps had a way to pop it up. Made life much easier.
i feel like readline and tab-completion is pretty important to a good command language, and plausibly you want to integrate support for tab-completion into the design of the language itself rather than having to write a separate completer for each command
i'm kind of puzzled why tclsh doesn't have any command-line editing. maybe ousterhout's team was only ever using tclsh in emacs shell-mode or something like your tk terminal? as an exercise, i wrote a basic command-line editor in c in bed on my cellphone the other night. it took me an hour and a half and 120 lines of code (with a very narrow line length to fit onto the cellphone screen), and it supports arrow keys, movement by words, word delete, about a dozen keystroke commands in all, which is most of the ones i use. (though i really need to fix the cbreak handling and handling of wide lines to work reliably.)
http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/editline.c
tcl is about 200'000 lines of c; there's no reason for tclsh to be missing this
As for speed, it’s less that everything is a string (internally, data gets stored as both a string and whatever it last needed to be converted to) and more because TCL is so dynamic that compiling it is hard.
There’s been some work on compiling to native though.
EDIT: looks like tcl doesn't bytecode uplevel expressions, so I must be missing a catch?
to be specific, it would be pretty hard to optimize a non-leaf procedure if any other procedure it called were able to violate any assumptions you'd made when optimizing it. elided redundant type checks, perhaps to specialize a proc? the proc it called changed the type of one of its variables. constant propagation? that proc changed the value of the variable you thought was constant. strength-reduction? likewise. you aren't going to get much dead code elimination without constant propagation. invariant hoisting? how are you going to figure out what's invariant if a proc you're calling inside the loop could change any of the variables used in it? register allocation? better have a way for upvar and uplevel to look up which register it was
Also security I suppose. I'm thinking of injection attacks.
I remember comparing Tcl/Tk with Rebol/View - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7069311