Eventual improvements to DNA language

[Botsareus]

The qustion in the poll is not exactly clear:

I though it was asking "Do we need stop in the current virsion of the dna script"

I abviosly voted no because:

cond
blablalbala
start
blablalbala
stop
cond 'two words are annoying to write , just write cond is better
blablalbala
start
blablalbala
stop
end 'two words are annoying to write , just write end is better.

For that matter we dont need a "start" statement eather;

conditions are maid up of 3-4 parts and  the 3 part is always a < > ~= etc.
make the compiler check if the 3rd part is what it is, then make it execute the 3 words as condition or switch to instruction.

Altough in theory this will work too , for the user I think its easyer to see the "start" statments so lets leave it alone on that.

This means that writing the compilor will be a little more painfull, but my point is we should make it as mutch user frandly as possible, were ever there is a way to skip on some keywords: utilize that way please!

[Numsgil]

The only real reason to require stops is to insist that the language follows a very easy and logical flow.

cond
blah
body
blah
cond
blah
else
blah
cond
blah
cond
blah

can get very confusing.  Requiring stops means you can easily see what the program is doing at any specific place, etc.

But since everyone seems to like the idea of getting rid of the requirement for stops altogether, I have no problem doing so.

[Numsgil]

Then why didn't you vote so?  I don't make polls for my own amusement, I listen to what they say.

[Numsgil]

I think you're confused.  The way it is now would be the first choice (sorta, cond doesn't require stop, but it does require start, so same idea).

The second choice eliminates the need for stops altogether, allowing genomes to be written:

cond
start

cond
start

const
start

etc.

So assuming you don't agree with the concensus, why would you vote for the concensus?

[Botsareus]

I did vote... I voted for the second choise.

[Numsgil]

Don't delete all your posts!  You make me look like an idiot.

"Hey, looka t Numsgil, he's lost his mind finally.  Talking to himself on the forums..."

[Botsareus]

sry, it was kind off topic but I gess I cant help it now.

[Botsareus]

more c++:

Do we need stop in the current virsion of the dna script?"

I abviosly voted no

!=

So assuming you don't agree with the concensus

ALL TRUE , were on earth is this huge gap of comprehansion comming from, as henk will say I am "speacking ordinary english" (exsept maybe for some lag of grammer and some lag of spelling)

[Numsgil]

I'm pretty sure in one of your ( :angry: deleted posts :angry:) you were lamenting that no one agrees with you, and how dare they, and no one listens to poor old Bots, etc. etc.

I believe there was also one of :shoot: these, gratuitous nudity in ascii at form, and a small note scribbled to the side proving the four colors theorem in about 20 lines, which was really quite impressive I thought.

[Botsareus]

well my post before this now should explain why, more clearly then the crap I wrote lest time.

!=
 means: "NOT EQUAL" right?

[Numsgil]

ALL TRUE , were on earth is this huge gap of comprehansion comming from, as henk will say I am "speacking ordinary english" (exsept maybe for some lag of grammer and some lag of spelling)

That's where it's comming from, those delted posts that said exactly the opposite of what you're saying now.

[Botsareus]

Strange, some hacker is moding my posts? , probebly not , I think I deleted them bc I noticed they were not making sense myself. :banghead: if you thought of it that way num and the fact that you read them before I had time to revice them.

[Botsareus]

(ok this needs to go off the board later but)

posting this:

The only real reason to require stops is to insist that the language follows a very easy and logical flow.

cond
blah
body
blah
cond
blah
else
blah
cond
blah
cond
blah

can get very confusing. Requiring stops means you can easily see what the program is doing at any specific place, etc.

But since everyone seems to like the idea of getting rid of the requirement for stops altogether, I have no problem doing so.

after this:

The qustion in the poll is not exactly clear:

I though it was asking "Do we need stop in the current virsion of the dna script"

I abviosly voted no because:


QUOTE 

cond
blablalbala
start
blablalbala
stop
cond 'two words are annoying to write , just write cond is better
blablalbala
start
blablalbala
stop
end 'two words are annoying to write , just write end is better.
 



For that matter we dont need a "start" statement eather;

conditions are maid up of 3-4 parts and the 3 part is always a < > ~= etc.
make the compiler check if the 3rd part is what it is, then make it execute the 3 words as condition or switch to instruction.

Altough in theory this will work too , for the user I think its easyer to see the "start" statments so lets leave it alone on that.

This means that writing the compilor will be a little more painfull, but my point is we should make it as mutch user frandly as possible, were ever there is a way to skip on some keywords: utilize that way please!

maid me feel , like everyone can care less what I think.

[Numsgil]

I'm increasingly inclined to remove your modify-your-own-posts priveleges.

Use the preview button when you type, don't submit until you've said more or less what you want to say.

[Botsareus]

DOES THIS MAKE sense OR NO?

(ok this needs to go off the board later but)

posting this:

The only real reason to require stops is to insist that the language follows a very easy and logical flow.

cond
blah
body
blah
cond
blah
else
blah
cond
blah
cond
blah

can get very confusing. Requiring stops means you can easily see what the program is doing at any specific place, etc.

But since everyone seems to like the idea of getting rid of the requirement for stops altogether, I have no problem doing so.

after this:

The qustion in the poll is not exactly clear:

I though it was asking "Do we need stop in the current virsion of the dna script"

I abviosly voted no because:


QUOTE 

cond
blablalbala
start
blablalbala
stop
cond 'two words are annoying to write , just write cond is better
blablalbala
start
blablalbala
stop
end 'two words are annoying to write , just write end is better.
 



For that matter we dont need a "start" statement eather;

conditions are maid up of 3-4 parts and the 3 part is always a < > ~= etc.
make the compiler check if the 3rd part is what it is, then make it execute the 3 words as condition or switch to instruction.

Altough in theory this will work too , for the user I think its easyer to see the "start" statments so lets leave it alone on that.

This means that writing the compilor will be a little more painfull, but my point is we should make it as mutch user frandly as possible, were ever there is a way to skip on some keywords: utilize that way please!

maid me feel , like everyone can care less what I think.