8 ms·

The Phix Programming Language

51 points by pitr 7y ago

theamk 7y ago
An interesting artifact from the times the only platform was wintel, the filenames were 8 characters long and “conventional languages” meant “C, C++, Ada, etc.” http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/phixvscl.htm http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/phixvscl.htm The only strange thing is release date and references to 64 bit arch..
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> my language is simple, unlike those other 1001 "simple" languages that aren't really Okay. In other words, it seems it's easier to make your own programming language than learn the ones that already exist.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pansa2 7y ago
  I can see why people think this way. If you know C, it sounds easier to build a new scripting language (it’s just another C program!) than to learn all the quirks of Python or Ruby.
  - bauerd 7y ago
    I know C and implementing a new scripting language for sure doesn't sound easier than using an existing one
    - codr7 7y ago
      Did you ever write an arithmetic evaluator? A calculator essentially? Or any other kind of evaluator? A text template engine perhaps? They all have plenty in common and exist along a continuum of complexity that includes scripting languages and goes all the way to general purpose.
      - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
        I've written all of these and I agree with the GP that it's easier to use an existing one. Why recreate someone else's work when you can just use it.
      - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > exist along a continuum of complexity Isn't that the point? Building a serious scripting language is a huge project. It's far more ambitious than writing a simple text-based calculator. If you want to build a scripting language worth actually adopting, it's going to have to be far better than Python. That's a very high bar. The same applies for everything in technology. You could try to write your own OS rather than use an existing one, but it's almost certainly a terrible idea.
        brianush1 7y ago
        Well, the whole idea is to keep it simple. Look at Lua for a language that can be implemented in a weekend and is still a very serious language. Admittedly, you would probably end up spending a lot of time in the design phase if you were to create your own language, but once you have that, if it truly is a simple language, the implementation is not a problem.
        codr7 7y ago
        Worth adopting by who? I once replaced a convoluted pricerule framework based on fixed options in a booking system with a simple evaluator that exposed variables for number of days, number of guests etc. That was very much worth adopting for that specific use case. Your line of arguing always assumes that any solution has to cover all bases, which is just not true when you're solving a specific problem. And no, the same doesn't apply for everything in technology. The continuum for operating systems starts at a much higher level of effort and cost of maintenance. Nothing is black or white.
  - codr7 7y ago
    And if you know Go it's [0] even easier. It all depends on just how general purpose you need it to be. If you ask me; people should build more simple languages, and learning how be considered an essential part of becoming a programmer. It's not rocket surgery. [0] https://github.com/codr7/gfoo https://github.com/codr7/gfoo
- aidenn0 7y ago
  I think it boils down to the fact that the last 10% of any project takes at least 90% of the work. It's easier to make the 90% of a programming language that meets your need than it is to learn a more complete language.
bctnry 7y ago
In short, a mediocre solution to a problem that was solved long time ago.
renox 7y ago
I'm still reading the doc, so nothing to say on the language but the website is great!
- Narishma 7y ago
  It's broken on low-resolution screens.
  - thanatropism 7y ago
    Let alone mobile.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  The quotes are mis-sttributed (at least one): https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_f_schumacher_148840 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_f_schumacher_148840
ncmncm 7y ago
What I need to know about a language: Does it do static types? Does it depend on GC? Can I pass functions to functions? Can I build an aggregate by listing the members, and pass it around? Can I vary the implementation of a function according to the types passed, as determined at compile time? If your description just lists (howsoever appealing) platitudes, I don't get the answers I need.
- cies 7y ago
  Exactly. What sets it apart. The current landing page screams the answer: nothing. Okay, the design whispers to me that "lack of community/ecosystem" sets it apart.
- antender 7y ago
  It is dynamicly typed with optional validators built-in. The cool part (and also the main weakness) is usage of resizable array-based vectors for all composite data types. Other distinguishing traits are RC-based GC, no higher-order functions (but ability to pass function pointers), direct memory access via BASIC-like poke. Original Euphoria language wasn't a scripting one, more like C on steroids (for MS-DOS), and its main usage was game prototyping.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - theamk 7y ago
    > usage of resizable array-based vectors for all composite data types Doesn’t this describe many of the modern languages - python’s lists, ruby’s arrays, etc...? Or is the cool part the lack of more specialized classes like dict or set?
    - antender 7y ago
      Python, actually, is older than Euphoria. :) The cool part is the focus on cache-local data structure first. Way more popular scripting languages like JS and Lua use hash tables as their primary data structures, Python and Ruby offer arrays as secondary option, but focus on using structs (classes) everywhere. Euphoria answer to this is to use arrays of cells for everything and enum your way out of situations where you need to group things.
Elrac 7y ago
Looking at "Core Language" I was dismayed not to find any builtin floating point data type. In "Phix vs Conventional Languages" I'm told that "1/2 is always 0.5". And "Library Routines" / "Math" includes sin, cos and tan. What's going on here?
- jorams 7y ago
  The type "atom"[1], is described in "Core Language" as follows: > An atom can hold a single floating point numeric value, or an integer I don't know why it isn't called "number", but it exists. The page on atom also mentions: > It can also hold a raw pointer, such as allocated memory or a call_back address, but that is typically only used when interfacing to external code in a .dll or .so file. [1]: http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/atom.htm http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/atom.htm
  - Elrac 7y ago
    You're right, I missed that. But that still leaves the ASCII tree diagram agreeing with the sentence "Phix has just five builtin data types:" while showing (and describing, in the following bullet point list) five data types that don't include "number" or a floating-point type. So what's left is a minor but consistently repeated error in the doc, on the "Core Language" page.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bajsejohannes 7y ago
I don't understand why anyone would create a one-indexed language these days. I feel like Dijkstra laid out pretty well why zero-indexing is objectively better [1]. If that wasn't enough, it's also most common by far. [1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...
- ben509 7y ago
  You'll typically see it in computer algebra systems whose syntax is intended to be typeset as traditional mathematical notation. Mathematica, for example, wants an array to look like what's being typeset, and it would be confusing (moreso than the potential off-by-one errors) to display `x[3]` while the actual code said `x[2]`. I think other languages aimed at mathematicians, like Julia[1], do this for similar reasons but, honestly, unless you're writing a CAS, I think it's a bad idea. Having lived with Dijkstra's ideas for a while, I will say that people find closed-open sequences highly counter-intuitive. I work on a financial simulator, so we use dates quite a bit. Representing a year as 1-Jan-X up to but not including 1-Jan-(X + 1) is perfectly natural, and really works well with date-time libraries. It still works if you're using dates and decide to extend it to handle datetimes, and even months 1-M-X to nextmonth(1-M-X) do what you'd expect. So he's right, the math works beautifully. You also avoid writing a successor function when you split closed-open ranges; easy with integers, but gets tricky with almost anything else. But I've had to nag people many times to not use Dec 31. I think the intuition for a closed-closed ranage is deeply ingrained and that extra "Jan 1" seems to stick out and bother people. From that discussion, here's an interesting argument in favor of 1-based indexing: > Let me try to briefly convey how I learned to stop worrying and love 1-based indexing. Basically it comes down to the fact that there are three significant numbers you have to think about when it comes to an array: it's initial index, final index, and length. In 0-based indexing, these are all different: 0, n-1, and n. In 1-based indexing, the final index and length are the same: 0, n, n. That's one less thing to think about and keep track of when coding. It seems trivial, but when you're doing something tricky and juggling a lot of complicated things in your head, even the tiniest alleviation of cognitive load helps, I find. [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/julia-dev/tNN72FnYbYQ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/julia-dev/tNN7...
AdrianB1 7y ago
Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of this language? A learning exercise or an attempt to create just another language in the pool of over 1000 already there? Writing an entire language as a way to hone someone's skills is great, even if it is very time consuming vs. the output (skills learned). But I wonder what better options exist.
- petra 7y ago
  Probably working together with a group, on an interesting and relevant project. The output will likely be better, and your skills will improve faster - because of the feedback. Or, for medium scale ideas, maybe taking another language and forking it would be useful.
- antender 7y ago
  This one is a loose reimplementation of Euphoria language with long enough history of its own. Sadly, the development of the successor to original RapidEuphoria interpreter called OpenEuphoria somewhat stalled after 2014.
classified 7y ago
My antivirus says: "Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/HTMLGen-A has been found on this website." May be it's a false alarm, but I thought I had better share it here.
ggrothendieck 7y ago
This is related to the Euphoria language which has a long history so I gather this is not something that was quickly slapped together. http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/eucompat.htm http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/eucompat.htm
rurban 7y ago
This seems to be a euphoria fork, which can be installed on linux, and which runs fine. But how can I bootstrap phix on linux with euphoria? Ah, got it. You need to download the executable p64, see http://phix.x10.mx/download.php http://phix.x10.mx/download.php Like with old lisps.

51 points by pitr 7y ago

An interesting artifact from the times the only platform was wintel, the filenames were 8 characters long and “conventional languages” meant “C, C++, Ada, etc.” http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/phixvscl.htm http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/phixvscl.htm The only strange thing is release date and references to 64 bit arch..

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

> my language is simple, unlike those other 1001 "simple" languages that aren't really Okay. In other words, it seems it's easier to make your own programming language than learn the ones that already exist.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pansa2 7y ago
I can see why people think this way. If you know C, it sounds easier to build a new scripting language (it’s just another C program!) than to learn all the quirks of Python or Ruby.
- bauerd 7y ago
  I know C and implementing a new scripting language for sure doesn't sound easier than using an existing one
  - codr7 7y ago
    Did you ever write an arithmetic evaluator? A calculator essentially? Or any other kind of evaluator? A text template engine perhaps? They all have plenty in common and exist along a continuum of complexity that includes scripting languages and goes all the way to general purpose.
    - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
      I've written all of these and I agree with the GP that it's easier to use an existing one. Why recreate someone else's work when you can just use it.
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      > exist along a continuum of complexity Isn't that the point? Building a serious scripting language is a huge project. It's far more ambitious than writing a simple text-based calculator. If you want to build a scripting language worth actually adopting, it's going to have to be far better than Python. That's a very high bar. The same applies for everything in technology. You could try to write your own OS rather than use an existing one, but it's almost certainly a terrible idea.
      - brianush1 7y ago
        Well, the whole idea is to keep it simple. Look at Lua for a language that can be implemented in a weekend and is still a very serious language. Admittedly, you would probably end up spending a lot of time in the design phase if you were to create your own language, but once you have that, if it truly is a simple language, the implementation is not a problem.
      - codr7 7y ago
        Worth adopting by who? I once replaced a convoluted pricerule framework based on fixed options in a booking system with a simple evaluator that exposed variables for number of days, number of guests etc. That was very much worth adopting for that specific use case. Your line of arguing always assumes that any solution has to cover all bases, which is just not true when you're solving a specific problem. And no, the same doesn't apply for everything in technology. The continuum for operating systems starts at a much higher level of effort and cost of maintenance. Nothing is black or white.
- codr7 7y ago
  And if you know Go it's [0] even easier. It all depends on just how general purpose you need it to be. If you ask me; people should build more simple languages, and learning how be considered an essential part of becoming a programmer. It's not rocket surgery. [0] https://github.com/codr7/gfoo https://github.com/codr7/gfoo
aidenn0 7y ago
I think it boils down to the fact that the last 10% of any project takes at least 90% of the work. It's easier to make the 90% of a programming language that meets your need than it is to learn a more complete language.

bctnry 7y ago

In short, a mediocre solution to a problem that was solved long time ago.

renox 7y ago

I'm still reading the doc, so nothing to say on the language but the website is great!

Narishma 7y ago
It's broken on low-resolution screens.
- thanatropism 7y ago
  Let alone mobile.
Supermancho 7y ago
The quotes are mis-sttributed (at least one): https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_f_schumacher_148840 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/e_f_schumacher_148840

ncmncm 7y ago

What I need to know about a language: Does it do static types? Does it depend on GC? Can I pass functions to functions? Can I build an aggregate by listing the members, and pass it around? Can I vary the implementation of a function according to the types passed, as determined at compile time? If your description just lists (howsoever appealing) platitudes, I don't get the answers I need.

cies 7y ago
Exactly. What sets it apart. The current landing page screams the answer: nothing. Okay, the design whispers to me that "lack of community/ecosystem" sets it apart.
antender 7y ago
It is dynamicly typed with optional validators built-in. The cool part (and also the main weakness) is usage of resizable array-based vectors for all composite data types. Other distinguishing traits are RC-based GC, no higher-order functions (but ability to pass function pointers), direct memory access via BASIC-like poke. Original Euphoria language wasn't a scripting one, more like C on steroids (for MS-DOS), and its main usage was game prototyping.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- theamk 7y ago
  > usage of resizable array-based vectors for all composite data types Doesn’t this describe many of the modern languages - python’s lists, ruby’s arrays, etc...? Or is the cool part the lack of more specialized classes like dict or set?
  - antender 7y ago
    Python, actually, is older than Euphoria. :) The cool part is the focus on cache-local data structure first. Way more popular scripting languages like JS and Lua use hash tables as their primary data structures, Python and Ruby offer arrays as secondary option, but focus on using structs (classes) everywhere. Euphoria answer to this is to use arrays of cells for everything and enum your way out of situations where you need to group things.

Elrac 7y ago

Looking at "Core Language" I was dismayed not to find any builtin floating point data type. In "Phix vs Conventional Languages" I'm told that "1/2 is always 0.5". And "Library Routines" / "Math" includes sin, cos and tan. What's going on here?

jorams 7y ago
The type "atom"[1], is described in "Core Language" as follows: > An atom can hold a single floating point numeric value, or an integer I don't know why it isn't called "number", but it exists. The page on atom also mentions: > It can also hold a raw pointer, such as allocated memory or a call_back address, but that is typically only used when interfacing to external code in a .dll or .so file. [1]: http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/atom.htm http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/atom.htm
- Elrac 7y ago
  You're right, I missed that. But that still leaves the ASCII tree diagram agreeing with the sentence "Phix has just five builtin data types:" while showing (and describing, in the following bullet point list) five data types that don't include "number" or a floating-point type. So what's left is a minor but consistently repeated error in the doc, on the "Core Language" page.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bajsejohannes 7y ago

I don't understand why anyone would create a one-indexed language these days. I feel like Dijkstra laid out pretty well why zero-indexing is objectively better [1]. If that wasn't enough, it's also most common by far. [1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...

ben509 7y ago
You'll typically see it in computer algebra systems whose syntax is intended to be typeset as traditional mathematical notation. Mathematica, for example, wants an array to look like what's being typeset, and it would be confusing (moreso than the potential off-by-one errors) to display `x[3]` while the actual code said `x[2]`. I think other languages aimed at mathematicians, like Julia[1], do this for similar reasons but, honestly, unless you're writing a CAS, I think it's a bad idea. Having lived with Dijkstra's ideas for a while, I will say that people find closed-open sequences highly counter-intuitive. I work on a financial simulator, so we use dates quite a bit. Representing a year as 1-Jan-X up to but not including 1-Jan-(X + 1) is perfectly natural, and really works well with date-time libraries. It still works if you're using dates and decide to extend it to handle datetimes, and even months 1-M-X to nextmonth(1-M-X) do what you'd expect. So he's right, the math works beautifully. You also avoid writing a successor function when you split closed-open ranges; easy with integers, but gets tricky with almost anything else. But I've had to nag people many times to not use Dec 31. I think the intuition for a closed-closed ranage is deeply ingrained and that extra "Jan 1" seems to stick out and bother people. From that discussion, here's an interesting argument in favor of 1-based indexing: > Let me try to briefly convey how I learned to stop worrying and love 1-based indexing. Basically it comes down to the fact that there are three significant numbers you have to think about when it comes to an array: it's initial index, final index, and length. In 0-based indexing, these are all different: 0, n-1, and n. In 1-based indexing, the final index and length are the same: 0, n, n. That's one less thing to think about and keep track of when coding. It seems trivial, but when you're doing something tricky and juggling a lot of complicated things in your head, even the tiniest alleviation of cognitive load helps, I find. [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/julia-dev/tNN72FnYbYQ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/julia-dev/tNN7...

AdrianB1 7y ago

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of this language? A learning exercise or an attempt to create just another language in the pool of over 1000 already there? Writing an entire language as a way to hone someone's skills is great, even if it is very time consuming vs. the output (skills learned). But I wonder what better options exist.

petra 7y ago
Probably working together with a group, on an interesting and relevant project. The output will likely be better, and your skills will improve faster - because of the feedback. Or, for medium scale ideas, maybe taking another language and forking it would be useful.
antender 7y ago
This one is a loose reimplementation of Euphoria language with long enough history of its own. Sadly, the development of the successor to original RapidEuphoria interpreter called OpenEuphoria somewhat stalled after 2014.

classified 7y ago

My antivirus says: "Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/HTMLGen-A has been found on this website." May be it's a false alarm, but I thought I had better share it here.

ggrothendieck 7y ago

This is related to the Euphoria language which has a long history so I gather this is not something that was quickly slapped together. http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/eucompat.htm http://phix.x10.mx/docs/html/eucompat.htm

rurban 7y ago

This seems to be a euphoria fork, which can be installed on linux, and which runs fine. But how can I bootstrap phix on linux with euphoria? Ah, got it. You need to download the executable p64, see http://phix.x10.mx/download.php http://phix.x10.mx/download.php Like with old lisps.