OWL Web Language
-
-
@brisingraerowing said in OWL Web Language:
OWL Web Language features a JavaScript-like syntax and compiles to PHP, promising more security and safety
How many s can we find in that simple onebox snippet alone?
-
E_WTF_OVERFLOW
-
OWL Web Language features a JavaScript-like syntax and compiles to PHP, promising more security and safety
-
@raceprouk My thoughts exactly!
-
@brisingraerowing said in OWL Web Language:
compiles to PHP
If only we had some sort of common intermediate language.
-
@raceprouk said in OWL Web Language:
OWL Web Language features a JavaScript-like syntax and compiles to PHP, promising more security and safety
Is Borland back?
Edit: For all you youngun's out there - OWL was Borland's version of MFC.
-
@brisingraerowing said in OWL Web Language:
- OWL: A 'better' PHP
=>
That's not a high bar to clear. - for single-server apps
=>
What does this even mean? - OWL Web Language
=>
recursive acronym - features a JavaScript-like syntax
=>
So it's usable by most webdevs? But if they know JS (or are newbies learning it), why would they want something else? - and compiles to PHP,
=>
Uh........why? They've already got JavaScript. If they want PHP, then why use JS syntax? Just use PHP like any "normal" PHP dev. - promising more
=>
Ooh, goody! I like promises of more. More what, though? - security
=>
From PHP or JavaScript? - and safety
=>
Bahahahahaha!
Trying to blur the lines like this seems like a cross-over between Star Trek and Star Wars. I mean, sure, you might get "cool" things like Jedi mind-melds, but all you're really doing is inviting ridicule from both sides.
- OWL: A 'better' PHP
-
@brisingraerowing it sounds like someone designed a language for maximum WTF
-
@djls45 said in OWL Web Language:
for single-server apps => What does this even mean?
It means it's not scalable at all.
-
I think they had good intentions but got their facts wrong. The original idea was to compile
JS <-- PHP
It is all R's fault for confusing notation
-
@dse what's with people compiling everything to JavaScript?
-
-
@gąska said in OWL Web Language:
@dse what's with people compiling everything to JavaScript?
Because absolutely nobody wants to ever have to write it.
-
@wharrgarbl said in OWL Web Language:
@brisingraerowing it sounds like someone designed a language
for maximum WTFthat will be absolutely impossible to debug
-
@djls45 said in OWL Web Language:
- OWL: A 'better' PHP
=>
That's not a high bar to clear.
I bet most of the people who routinely bash PHP on this site haven't actually done PHP lately. The language is evolving in a good way. It's much, much easier to do the right thing now.
- for single-server apps
=>
What does this even mean?
PHP is usually a case of running multiple apps on the same server because it isn't hard to do, as you can have Apache server multiple domains easily.
Compare with Node, for example where this is much harder to do out of the box.
- OWL Web Language
=>
recursive acronym
PHP now has one but it wasn't originally like that.
- features a JavaScript-like syntax
=>
So it's usable by most webdevs? But if they know JS (or are newbies learning it), why would they want something else? - and compiles to PHP,
=>
Uh........why? They've already got JavaScript. If they want PHP, then why use JS syntax? Just use PHP like any "normal" PHP dev.
This isn't about getting JS people into PHP, this is about making PHP easier to use. Having less visual cruft not the worst idea ever. And frankly, PHP still seems so much more sane than JS ever did.
Dropping the two types of quotes, good idea, he even picked the correct one. Dropping switch statements, bad idea. Dropping while statements, eh, rarely write those and whrn I do, it's because there is literally no better way to express the notion, short of goto. Which I don't think he's abandoning.
- promising more
=>
Ooh, goody! I like promises of more. More what, though? - security
=>
From PHP or JavaScript? - and safety
=>
Bahahahahaha!
Everyone bashes PHP but the really bullshit stuff was nuked from orbit already (safe mode, magic quotes, register globals), and yes you can do stupid shit with unfiltered input but the same holds true in any language: always assume user is trying to break something.
Everyone bitches about mysql_real_escape_string while forgetting we've had two different choices for prepared statements for a fucking decade already. I'll bash PHP for its actual faults like anyone else, but most of what people think of as PHP's faults were already fixed.
Trying to blur the lines like this seems like a cross-over between Star Trek and Star Wars. I mean, sure, you might get "cool" things like Jedi mind-melds, but all you're really doing is inviting ridicule from both sides.
It's not trying to blur the lines, so much as drag ideas from one to the other because I guess he prefers JS like syntax. We already inherited short array syntax from JS...
- OWL: A 'better' PHP
-
@arantor said in OWL Web Language:
Dropping switch statements
@arantor said in OWL Web Language:
Dropping while statements
Less of a loss (
while
,do while
, andfor
are all variants of each other anyway), but there's a reason why most languages have all three.
-
@raceprouk not necessarily.
Consider do { stuff } while (condition == true)
Though they made this an extension of the for construct, after digging through the manual.
There are some interesting ideas, like re-separating lists and maps since PHP glues this shit together (though it rarely matters too much in practice)
Less thrilled at this "LockString" construct they have, seems fragile and that there are simpler ways of separating off the raw user vars.
Dislike other things they've done, // is single kind comment, /// to start/end multiline comments, triple quote to start multiline quotes.
an awful lot of this is syntactic sugar changes rather than even encouraging the correct behaviour changes. PHP devs coming to this languages will have hurdles e.g. === is now == and there is no loose typed comparison operator now, but this can't go wrong when things that come out of libraries might not be the type you think it might be.
-
This is basically PHP if it was designed right.
Except.
The time for PHP was 20 years ago. That time has come and is now gone. You can't remake history. The dynamic functionality they are demoing (color picker) is these days handled by frontend javascript. If you need data storage, you probably use firebase or some other SAAS with a free tier. Or just use PHP with its million mature libraries.
That's another problem. OWL is trying to replace everything. A new language, standard library, css imports system, frontend templating... PHP interop is waaay down on the road map (wtf? how is that not the first feature they implemented?). A big company would have problems keeping pace with all this complexity and code. This is one guy making all this.
OWL has no chance.
-
@BrisingrAerowing I couldn't help noticing your avatar.
(I know, it's a gryphon)
-
@arantor said in OWL Web Language:
triple quote to start multiline quotes.
That's pretty standard in languages other than PHP. TRWTF is that the PHP developers chose that awful Bash-like syntax.
-
@asdf was it standard 20 ago when PHP first did heredoc?
-
I was extremely confused by this whole thread until I realised they were not talking about OWL but rather OWL. At that point, I switched to
-
@dkf I can imagine how that meeting went:
'Web Ontology Language' is a bit of a mouthful. How can we shorten it?
We could abbreviate it.
Good idea! OWL it is!
But that's not right-
We're calling it OWL!
[...yeah, I'm not going to bother arguing with you]
-
@raceprouk Yes, and also this…
-
@arantor said in OWL Web Language:
Everyone bitches about mysql_real_escape_string while forgetting we've had two different choices for prepared statements for a fucking decade already.
I can understand your consternation, but that name is too funny to ever forget.
-
@boomzilla it is funny, yes, but bashing the language for a feature that is gone now (although there are some legacy hints in MySQLi) is tedious :P
-
@arantor So we can't make fun of stupid historical stuff just because it doesn't exist anymore? How would the
Front Pageinternet even exist?
-
@arantor Potato, potah_real_escape_to.
-
I figured what the acronym really means:
Overload of Wtf Language
-
@vault_dweller find new stuff to bash instead ;) like things that try to reinvent things that didn't really need reinventing...
-
Ok, for a while I've been wondering: as far as I can tell, Go on the App Engine functions by compiling your code to some sort of byte code and then interpreting it with access to only stdin and stdout. Which means the App Engine can technically run ANY ESOTERIC LANGUAGE if someone writes a compiler to their specific type of bytecode.
Without further ado, I present my proposal for a new App Engine language. Google, pay attention:
-
@cartman82 I think the idea that languages are tied to platforms is generally bullshit and needs to go.
Sure, there are some differences between server code and client code, like that the server code needs to handle thousands of events in parallel while the desktop generally doesn't. But I don't think that affects the language itself that much.
Meaning that, almost always, code written in a general purpose object-oriented language (Javascript, PHP, C#, Java, Go, etc.) could be rewritten in a different one and look pretty much the same. And there's generally no technical reason why you can run any of those in a certain platform but not a different one, other than "no one has bothered to write the necessary glue code yet".
For example, 4 of the 6 items in their "good parts of PHP" list are entirely implementation dependant:
- A simple share-nothing request cycle
- Available nearly everywhere
- No build steps — just edit & refresh
- mod_php is fast and requires no administration
-
IMO any language in which you can implement a general
while
loop on top offor
is .The
for
loop was invented in ALGOL, and it had an iterator variable that looped over a specified range. This is what distinguishes it from awhile
loop. Unfortunately, the C guys screwed it up and gave us a bizarre perversion that could emulate any conceivablewhile
loop, only much more complicated--and also awhile
statement, just to be extra confusing. And now we've got language designers droppingwhile
entirely because it's possible to implement it as a franken-for
?Yet another reason why I wish C had never gotten off the ground.
-
-
@dse said in OWL Web Language:
@cartman82 said in OWL Web Language:
OWL has no chance.
Poor Hedwig you monster
I think they were referring to you having no chance at passing the Ordinary Wizarding Level exam.
-
@raceprouk They could just be French and pulling a UTC on us.
-
@magus At least
Universal Time Co-ordinated
makes sense;Ontology Web Language
, not so much
-
@arantor said in OWL Web Language:
PHP now has one but it wasn't originally like that.
Personal Home Page is called something else? Color is shocked...
-
@masonwheeler said in OWL Web Language:
IMO any language in which you can implement a general
while
loop on top offor
is .So how would you write iteration over a simple linked list? (Remember, you're dealing with a low-level language which doesn't have all the under-the-hood complexity of, say, Python's generators.)
-
@tsaukpaetra said in OWL Web Language:
Personal Home Page is called something else?
Psychological Horror Programming
-
@jaloopa said in OWL Web Language:
Psychological real Horror Programming
-
@boomzilla sick burn, bro!
-
@arantor It makes me chuckle.
-
@boomzilla me too ;)
-
@raceprouk said in OWL Web Language:
@magus At least
Universal Time Co-ordinated
makes sense;Ontology Web Language
, not so muchBut
Ontological Web Language
does.
-
What the fuck is a LockString and to what problem is it supposed to be a solution?
-
@alexmedia said in OWL Web Language:
What the fuck is a LockString
They're immutable strings. That's what they sound like, anyway.
@alexmedia said in OWL Web Language:
and to what problem is it supposed to be a solution?
Fuck knows: in .NET, all strings are immutable, and it solves fuck all.
-
@raceprouk When learning Objective-C, I was quite surprised to discover how strings work there.
NSString is immutable and NSMutableString is mutable, however NSMutableString inherits from NSString.
So, given a reference to NSString, il could be either mutable or immutable. This means that when you receive a string (say, an object property or something else you need to keep) you must copy it to a new string and keep that one, because what you're given could be mutable and change later.So, by only using immutable strings, .NET solves what would be a problem.
-
@zmaster wouldn't another solution just be to have a distinction between truly-immutable and mutable-but-not-through-this-interface?