4 ms·

I see, so strings act as implicit "constructors" for datatypes (which are not even datatypes per se, just encoded information within a given string datatype), d

by 9214 6y ago

I see, so strings act as implicit "constructors" for datatypes (which are not even datatypes per se, just encoded information within a given string datatype), depending on their usage? This is indeed an interesting design choice. Rebol in such cases requires explicit conversion from string to a target type.

stchacademy 6y ago
Yes, you are right. And this is the way it works throughout, with different functions - 'do' aside, that is. For example, there is the very powerful 'read' function. This may take a simple string (text), a file location or a URL. You obviously know what it is and the interpreter will figure it out itself as well. Now, let's say you want to read a file: read "myfile.txt" "Reading" a webpage: read "http://somewebsite.com/somewebpage http://somewebsite.com/somewebpage" Parsing JSON from a remote source: read.json "http://somewebsite.com/data.json http://somewebsite.com/data.json" Or parsing it from a string: read.json "[1,2,3]" And 'read' also can take different attributes, e.g. .csv (for parsing CSV files), .html etc etc... Basically you pass a string with its options and the interpreter figures out where to get it from and what to do with it... :)
- stchacademy 6y ago
  (I'm replying here, since I don't seem to be able to reply directly) @9214 Since you are knowledgeable about the topic (included but not limited to Rebol/Red), I would be glad if you joined the effort. Even testing bits here and there would be great. You're welcome :)
- 9214 6y ago
  Alright, but personally I fail to see how is that qualitatively different from all the other mainstream languages that use strings as a compensatory kitchen sink to encode literals not present by default.
  - stchacademy 6y ago
    FYI, I've just published the first complete reference (language reference + full library reference, with tons of examples): https://github.com/arturo-lang/arturo/wiki https://github.com/arturo-lang/arturo/wiki Let me know what you think! :)
- stchacademy 6y ago
  Well, the main difference is that - although we do use strings (for files, urls, etc) - the appropriate datatypes are constructed implicitly, that is: no need for newFile("someFile") or %someFile. "someFile", if it is a file path, will be automatically handled as such. If it is a url, accordingly. The point is to keep the syntax clean. (Ok, that would be an argument of going all the way, like Tcl, where everything ends up being a string - but let's just get the best of every world without overdoing it :) )
  - 9214 6y ago
    Good point about Tcl, that now makes sense. Thanks for elaborating!

by 9214 6y ago

stchacademy 6y ago

Yes, you are right. And this is the way it works throughout, with different functions - 'do' aside, that is. For example, there is the very powerful 'read' function. This may take a simple string (text), a file location or a URL. You obviously know what it is and the interpreter will figure it out itself as well. Now, let's say you want to read a file: read "myfile.txt" "Reading" a webpage: read "http://somewebsite.com/somewebpage http://somewebsite.com/somewebpage" Parsing JSON from a remote source: read.json "http://somewebsite.com/data.json http://somewebsite.com/data.json" Or parsing it from a string: read.json "[1,2,3]" And 'read' also can take different attributes, e.g. .csv (for parsing CSV files), .html etc etc... Basically you pass a string with its options and the interpreter figures out where to get it from and what to do with it... :)

stchacademy 6y ago
(I'm replying here, since I don't seem to be able to reply directly) @9214 Since you are knowledgeable about the topic (included but not limited to Rebol/Red), I would be glad if you joined the effort. Even testing bits here and there would be great. You're welcome :)
9214 6y ago
Alright, but personally I fail to see how is that qualitatively different from all the other mainstream languages that use strings as a compensatory kitchen sink to encode literals not present by default.
- stchacademy 6y ago
  FYI, I've just published the first complete reference (language reference + full library reference, with tons of examples): https://github.com/arturo-lang/arturo/wiki https://github.com/arturo-lang/arturo/wiki Let me know what you think! :)
stchacademy 6y ago
Well, the main difference is that - although we do use strings (for files, urls, etc) - the appropriate datatypes are constructed implicitly, that is: no need for newFile("someFile") or %someFile. "someFile", if it is a file path, will be automatically handled as such. If it is a url, accordingly. The point is to keep the syntax clean. (Ok, that would be an argument of going all the way, like Tcl, where everything ends up being a string - but let's just get the best of every world without overdoing it :) )
- 9214 6y ago
  Good point about Tcl, that now makes sense. Thanks for elaborating!