Adult Engineer Over-Optimization as the Motie Problem

Looking at my Scheme code and the way I customize it, I'm starting to see the real reason evil megacorps (and wannabe evil startups) won't hire even middle-aged programmers or use your favorite weirdo language, they just want young idiots who code Java or Go.

If you think about a standard software career, there's maybe 10 years of a submissive fool badly coding crap languages ^1 like Java, Go ^3, PHP, JavaScript ^4. They just got out of college or self-trained, and can barely copy existing algorithms, let alone think of one for themselves. This is why FizzBuzzTest ^5 is such a good novice coder test: It requires following directions exactly, and slightly competent logic skills, but not much more.

Then maybe 10 years of them being project managers and "architects", running waterfall and GANTT charts; they'll say they're "agile" but then have a giant JIRA repo of "backlog" features which have to be implemented before shipping, weekly 4-hour planning "backlog grooming" meetings, and unrealistic estimates. This is sufficient to build all kinds of horrible vertical prisons of the mind like Azkaban Facebook.

Then they either retire, or are "downsized", and now what? So they work on their own code, do maintenance on old systems, or leave the industry entirely.

If they work on their own, freed of evil megacorp constraints, they're going to end up in something idiosyncratic and expressive, like Scheme, LISP, Forth, or a custom language. Make their own weirdo environment that's perfectly fit to themself, and unusable/unreadable by anyone else.

Case in point, I needed an object model. There's one I like in Gerbil, and Gerbil's blazing fast, but I can't make a full SDL2 library for it yet (Gambit's FFI is hard, I've hit some bugs, and there's a LOT of library to interface to), and I'm using a bunch of other Chickenisms anyway, so I can't really move to it yet. Instead I just made my own simple object libary, with a couple macros to hide the ugly reality behind it:

(test-group "Object"
    (test "Object" 'Object (class-name Object))
    (let [ (obj (@new Object))  (bug )  (cow )  (duck ) ]
        (test "Object-to-string" "[Object]" (@call obj 'to-string))

        (define-class Animal Object)
        (define-field Animal 'legs 0)
        (define-field Animal 'color )
        (define-method Animal 'init (self legs color)
            (set! (@field self 'legs) legs)
            (set! (@field self 'color) color) )
        (define-method Animal 'speak (self)
            (sprintf "The ~A ~A with ~A legs says " (@field self 'color) (class-name (@class self)) (@field self 'legs)) )

        (set! bug (@new Animal 6 "green"))
        (test "bug-legs" 6 (@field bug 'legs))
        (test "bug-color" "green" (@field bug 'color))
        (test "Bug speak" "The green Animal with 6 legs says " (@call bug 'speak))

        (define-class Cow Animal)
        (define-method Cow 'init (self color)
            (@super self 'init 4 color) )
        (define-method Cow 'speak (self)
            (string-append (@super self 'speak) "MOO!") )
        (set! cow (@new Cow "brown"))

        ;; second class to make sure classes don't corrupt shared superclass
        (define-class Duck Animal)
        (define-method Duck 'init (self color)
            (@super self 'init 2 color) )
        (define-method Duck 'speak (self)
            (string-append (@super self 'speak) "QUACK!") )
        (set! duck (@new Duck "black"))

        (test "Cow speak" "The brown Cow with 4 legs says MOO!" (@call cow 'speak))
        (test "Cow to string" "[Cow color:brown;legs:4]" (@call cow 'to-string))
        (test "Duck speak" "The black Duck with 2 legs says QUACK!" (@call duck 'speak))
        (test "Duck to string" "[Duck color:black;legs:2]" (@call duck 'to-string))

        (test "instance-of?"  (instance-of? cow Cow))
        (test "instance-of? parent"  (instance-of? cow Animal))
        (test "instance-of? grandparent"  (instance-of? cow Object))
        (test "instance-of? cousin-false"  (instance-of? cow Duck))
        (test "instance-of? not an obj-false"  (instance-of? "wtf" Cow))

The implementation code's not much longer than the tests, but it's not quite done for me to show off; I need to switch my macros into non-hygeinic forms so I can get rid of the (self) in define-method, and introduce an Objective-C-like _cmd field for self-reflection, and message-not-understood handling. There's always more tinkering to do.

Which is great for me, but makes my code an undocumented (mostly) new language, unusable by anyone normal. A giant pile of crap Java program, no matter how old, can be "worked on" (more crap piled on top) by any teenage Bro Coder.

All of which brought to mind The Mote in God's Eye, where the Motie Engineers over-optimize everything into a tangled mess, and the Watchmaker vermin are even worse, wiring up everything to everything to make new devices. The threat posed by and solution to Scheme programmers, in your usual authoritarian megacorp scenario, is similar to Watchmakers.

^1 Swift is intended to fit this niche much more than weirdo expressive Smalltalk+C Objective-C was, BDSM ^2 to prevent one from writing "bad" code, but it's not there yet; the reality of low-level software dev can't be simplified as much as Apple wants, and their C++ developers weren't up to the task anyway.

^2 Bondage-Domination-Sado-Masochism; aka strict type systems and code flow analysis, that prevent one from writing "bad" code at the cost of annotating everything with types instead of doing useful work. I'm not kink-shaming people who do that for sex, only those who do it to their own software.

^3 Rob Pike has openly said they can't give a powerful language to newbie Googlers, they mostly just know Java, C, C++, which is why Go is so limited and generic.

^4 Oddly, JS is basically a LISP with really shitty syntax. It's easy to make trivial, broken junk in it, but it's also powerful and expressive if you're an old maniac who understands the Self-based object system.

^5 Oh, fine, but only so I can demonstrate something:

(define (fizzbuzz-test i n s)  (if (zero? (modulo i n))  (begin (display s) )  ) )
(define (fizzbuzz i)
    (unless (any identity (list (fizzbuzz-test i 3 'Fizz) (fizzbuzz-test i 5 'Buzz)))  (display i))
    (newline) )
(for (i 1 100) (fizzbuzz i))

Totally different structure from the usual loop-if-else repetition and hardcoding of everything, because Scheme encourages coding in small pieces. Of course I wrote my own for macro which expands to a named let loop; there's many like it but this one is mine. More Motie engineering.

Programming the Atari 8-bit

My programming started in 1979 with the TRS-80 Model I, but in late 1981? early 1982?, I got my Atari 800, and later a 1200XL, then Atari ST. Those are what I consider "my computers".

Last few weeks for hobby time, I've taken up playing with an Atari 8-bit emulator, and may soon buy an old machine (130XE? I guess?) and a modern SD-card reader, and HDMI adapter unless I want to set up my old CRT… Yes, this is "pointless", but it's the most emotionally rewarding programming I've done in some time.

Had to do a lot of setup to get to this point, though. Follows are my excessive notes, which will hopefully be useful to others.

The keyboard mapping in AtariMacX is weird, I finally figured out:

Mac Key Atari Key
` Break
F2 Option
F3 Select
F4 Start
F5 Reset
Sh-F5 Cold Boot
Opt-F5 Insert Char (be REAL DAMN CAREFUL not to miss the Opt key!)
Home / Opt-F7 Clear
End Atari/Inverse
PgDn / Opt-F10 Help (XL/XE)
Opt-F1 F1 (1200XL)
Opt-F2 F2 (1200XL)
Opt-F3 F3 (1200XL)
Opt-F4 F4 (1200XL)
Capslock Cycle caps, may take several tries of caps A backspace repeat until you get lowercase, not graphics or uppercase.
Sh-Capslock Uppercase, almost always works

Typing on a real Atari keyboard is probably the #1 reason to get real hardware instead of emulation.

Immediately it comes rushing back, how much I didn't like the default environment of blue screen, clicky keyboard, inset margins. Easy to fix with a few pokes, but I don't want to do that every time I reboot, so I need a startup program.

  • First, configure Atari800MacX with the subdirectories next to it. It comes with all these folders in user space, but it's actually mapped to somewhere in /var, which is awful.
  • Make a boot disk. Media -> Disk Image Conversions -> XFD to ATR, pick the DOS25.XFD image in OSRoms, and call that boot.atr, store it in Disks, Load it in D1 Cmd-1 and pick boot.atr.
  • Reboot into DOS, by Control -> Disable BASIC. Bask in the glory of Atari DOS 2.5.
  • Make a data disk, Media -> New Floppy Image, I went with Medium Density (130K) since almost everything can read that, assign to Drive 2, and call that disk2.atr or whatever.
    • From Atari DOS, Format: I <return> D2: <return> Y <return>
    • Preferences -> Boot Media -> Set to Current Media, Save Configuration
  • My Atari BASIC project on Gitlab
    • Based on what I remember of my old main menu, I had a ton more stuff but I'm slowly adding routines as I need them. This can also be a shell for new programs, delete 11-9998 and use the subroutines. I wrote Draw to test joystick & function key scanning, not to be a good paint program, typed in a Music demo to make sure I had sound working.
      • Digression: This is not an efficient structure, because high line numbers take longer to find; an optimizing Poindexter would put the subroutines tightly packed at 1-999 and the program at 1000+, but it's massively easier to read & work with this way. I won't be in BASIC that much anyway, it's just for utility work.
    • Download AUTO.LST, convert Unix newlines (char 10) to the ATASCII newline (char 155 õ), and drop it in the HardDrive1 folder.
    • % LANG=C tr '\233' '\n' <AUTO.LST.TXT >AUTO.LST
    • Or you can just Media -> Edit an .ATR disk image, import file, and that has a newline conversion.
    • From BASIC, E."H1.AUTO.LST" <return> RUN <return>, pick Y. (Script AUTORUN.SYS), and enter:
      • ?"MAINMENU"
      • E."H1:AUTO.LST"
      • RUN
      • .
    • Change H1 to D1 if you saved it in your boot.atr.
    • Now it'll do that on every bootup from that floppy. Reboot to be sure it works.
    • If you make changes to your main menu, remember to LIST "H1:AUTO.LST". I use LIST/ENTER (text LST format) instead of SAVE/LOAD (tokenized BAS format) so I can read it from the Mac; BAS is slightly smaller and much faster to load/save, but it doesn't matter with emulation or an SD-card.

    • Atari-autorunsys

  • BASIC set up and tested, and it's a convenient place for little utilities, but now for real programming.

  • Atari Macro Assembler and Program Text Editor

    • Download this, read the fine manuals; more for MEDIT than the assembler unless you're really hardcore. I will probably do little or no assembly, even tho back in the '80s I could hand-assemble short programs directly into ATASCII codes to run from BASIC; bug-eating freak that I was.
    • Read the MEDIT manual. It's quite a respectable full-screen editor with command mode for search/replace, block editing, etc.
    • Open the Atari Macro Assembler and Program Text Editor.atx (ATX is write-protected or encrypted or something; you can't use them directly, and have to disable the SIO speedup hack in emulator) disk in drive 2 of your Atari (Cmd-2), Control -> Disable BASIC (which will reboot to DOS). So you want the program files off that:
      • DOS: C <return> D2:MEDIT,D1:MEDIT <return>
      • DOS: C <return> D2:MEDITCM.BAS,D1:MEDITCM.BAS <return>
      • DOS: C <return> D2:AMAC,D1:AMAC <return> (skip if you'll never write ASM)
      • DOS: C <return> D2:SYSTEXT,D1:SYSTEXT <return> (I think only needed for AMAC?)
      • Eject: Ctrl-Cmd-2
      • Reload your data disk, Cmd-1, disk2.atr.
    • Control -> Enable BASIC, LOAD "D1:MEDITCM.BAS" <return> RUN <return> and configure MEDIT however you like.
      • Language: PAS
      • Tabstops: Set at 5 and +4 after the existing ones, because 8-wide tabs are crazy in a 40-column screen. Yes, I'm a tabs not spaces guy, OBVIOUSLY.
      • Margins: 1,40
      • Colors: 12,4,14 (sadly can't be 0 or 2 background luminance, because the cursor is black)
      • Flags: Tabs: Expand, Shift-Lock: No (starts in lowercase).
      • Save & Return to DOS.
      • You can just copy the MEDITPAS.ECF to MEDITTXT.ECF, etc., you don't need to run the tool for each language, but it doesn't have a default mode. Note you also have to copy these to each disk you're editing on, or it switches back to the stupid defaults:
      • DOS: C <return> D1:*.ECF,D2: <return>
      • DOS: L <return> MEDIT <return>, filename D2:HELLO.PAS, and enter:
        program hello;
        var c: char;
          writeln('Hello, Atari!');
      • <option> exit <start> to save & exit. Note return doesn't execute commands in MEDIT, start does. Kids Today™ have some meme about how hard it is to exit vi? Ha ha, they have no idea. RTFM.

  • Finally ready to program in Action! or Pascal, which is what I mainly did back in the day.

    • Deep Blue C: Tragically underpowered version of Small-C. I loved it as an intro to C, but didn't use C for real until the Atari ST. It did produce standalone binaries and the compiler was easy to use, IIRC.
        Features in C not supported in DEEP BLUE C are:
        1) structures, unions
        2) multidimension arrays
        3) Floating point numbers
        4) Functions returning anything but int
        5) Unary operators: sizeof
        6) Binary operators: typecasting
        THE DEEP BLUE C language has the  following nonstandard features:
        1. The last clause of a "switch" statement, either "case" or "default", must
      be terminated with a "break", a "continue" or a "return" statement.
        2. The ancient =<op> construct has been removed. Use <op>= instead.
        3. Characters are unsigned. Chars range in value from 0 to 255.
        4. Strings can not be continued on the next logical line.
        5. C source code lines can be a maximum of 79 characters long.
        6. Functions can have a maximum of 126 arguments.
        C uses several ASCII characters not available on the ATARI computer's
      keyboard. In particular the braces have been replaced by to two-letter
      combinations $( and $), and the tilde has been replaced by $-.  The $ character
      is not used in C, so your editor's find and replace command can be used to
      convert standard c programs into a format acceptable to DEEP BLUE C.
    • Action!: Custom language on cart for Atari, fantastic built-in editor (later the basis for the Paperclip word processor!), had a disk runtime system so you could distribute programs (also on AtariMania). But it came out a little later than my Pascal adventures, and it's a weird super-low-level language, and I think I'm in no mood to relearn it right now. Super goddamned fast, tho. May get into this if I'm frustrated later.

    • APX Pascal: Excessively complex process with a disk swap for every compile, compiles & links into PCode, no explanation of how to boot it. This is a very user-hostile compiler.
    • Kyan Pascal: Maze of command line tools. Doesn't work, at least for me, on emulation. It cycles through the tools, but never actually builds anything, eventually crashes and corrupts video. Makes a big deal of being usable from RAMDisk, but that doesn't matter on modern hardware.
    • Draper Pascal: Which I used in the '80s. Hilariously bad editor (but I can use MEDIT, so fuck that), compiler just fucking works, but only produces PCode (.PCD), so has to start from bootdisk or run Draper's menu then your program, ick. But this was no trouble to get running, so it wins.
      • Insert drpascal.atr in drive 1, reboot, boots into a menu.
      • 3 Compile program: D2:HELLO.PAS
      • 1 Run program: D2:HELLO
      • Total success! \o/ Hit any key to exit the program.
      • Drive 1, boot.atr, Drive 2, drpascal.atr, reboot
      • DOS: C <return> D2:AUTORUN.SYS,D1:PASCAL.COM <return>
      • DOS: C <return> D2:INIT.PCD,D1:INIT.PCD <return>
      • Cmd-2, disk2.atr
      • So now I can: DOS: L <return> PASCAL.COM <return>
      • And run Pascal programs. I could make a more focused runtime menu for it, maybe dir & list all the PCD files, the INIT.PAS source is included. If I ask it to compile, it prompts to insert drpascal.atr, and then I can switch back, which is reasonable.
      • Standard library is small but effective, seems like it has all the BASIC equivalent commands, and enough POKE/PEEK/ADDR stuff to let me do everything, including Player-Missile Graphics.
      • I can presumably now move all my source and disk2.atr contents to H1, so they can be managed & edited on the Mac, but I just wanted to get things running first.
      • Probably make another gitlab project (and actually sync it from git) when I get somewhere with that.

This took quite a lot of my hobby time doing something harder than actual work, to be honest. But I'm in a good place with it now.

Building Command Lines in zsh

I love zsh, but sometimes it's a tough love. Building command lines in strings is very hard because zsh doesn't want you hurting yourself on argument splitting like bash, so I just banged my head on that for like 15 minutes before I quit being dumb. Building them in arrays is super trivial:

% a=(args foo bar)
% b=$(ls)
% a=($a $b) # expands $a, adds $b to the end as a single argument
% $a

Note that arg 3 is multiple words/lines, but one arg. That's a nightmare to express in bash, but makes perfect sense at the exec level used by "real" (non-shell) programming languages.

args is a very useful debugging script I've had in some form since the '80s:

while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
    echo "$i=$1"
    let i=i+1

A Scheme of Gerbils Runnin' in a Wheel

Chicken's mediocre performance is causing me problems, so I'm taking yet another language tour/spike.

Looking at Gerbil Scheme, as a faster Scheme and as a bonus it's closer to R7RS. It has far less library support than Chicken, but does have a FFI, and compiles to a native binary through C, so I really don't need too many libraries.

Instead of the #!key #!optional #!rest keywords used in Chicken and some others, Gerbil uses a literal template style for functions:

;; Chicken: (define (foo a #!key (b 'bar) #!optional (c "see?") #!rest rest)
;; Gerbil:
(def (foo a b: (b 'bar) (c "see?") . rest)
    (print "a=" a " b=" b " c=" c " rest=" rest "\n")
(foo "Mark" 1 b: "bees!" 'what) ;; note out-of-order optional & keyword
;; a=Mark b=bees! c=1 rest=what

I like this style better, but I dislike the "def" keyword (which uses the enhanced lambda that does this) instead of "define" which uses "lambda%" (traditional lambda).

Gerbil uses [] for list construction, and {} for method dispatch, so goodbye to the nicely distinguishable braces I was using in Chicken. The spec says implementations can do what they want with those symbols, but I wish they wouldn't. Ah, well. I'll add a shitload more whitespace and some comments and it'll be fine.

The struct/object system in Gerbil is pretty nice, they're slightly upgraded records, but there's an (@ obj field) syntax instead of (MyClass-field obj), and (defmethod {mymethod MyClass} ...) creates a polymorphic {mymethod obj args} which finds the right method for any object, which is especially useful for inheritance.

I tried doing some VT100 graphics just to proof-of-concept, but it's doing something to the terminal, such that the same escape codes which work in Python don't clear the screen fully in Gerbil. After a short losing battle with stty and termcap, I give up on that and I'll jump right to writing a C FFI to SDL, because in 2019 that's easier than writing to a console.

Daily reminder that everything we have made since 1984 is overcomplicated junk. On an Atari 800, this took a few seconds to type, and you could start coding a nice UI instantly:


Alas, we live in a fallen world, so this is going to be trouble. Here's my Gerbil FFI template so far:

package: myffi


(export )

    ;; names of all Scheme wrappers to expose

(c-declare #<<CDECLEND


int chello(void) {
    printf("Hello this is C!\n");
    return 1;


    (define-c-lambda chello () int "chello")

) ;; begin-ffi

; TODO for constants: (define FOO ((c-lambda () int "___result = FOO;")))

(define (main . args)

Gerbil has a Scheme-based build system, but I'm a caveman so I make another build.zsh:


function usage {
    echo "Usage: build.zsh MAIN.scm [LIBS] || -?"
    exit 1

if [[ $# -eq 0 || "$1" == "-?" || "$1" == "--help" ]]; then

mkdir -p bin

main=`basename $1 .scm`

gxc -exe -static -O -o bin/$main "$@" || exit 1
echo "Built bin/$main"


% ./build.zsh myffi.scm
Built bin/myffi
% bin/myffi
Hello this is C!

Hooray! Unconditional success! Only took all afternoon and a half-pot of coffee!

Now I "merely" have to wrap all of SDL (well, just the parts I need) and get linking working and oh sweet merciless Cthulhu. And I still won't know how much this'll help my performance until I'm days into it. But, the first step is the hardest.

REXX Monarchial Madness is Hereditary

So, I was trying to figure out how to manage global vs. local state, and made the dumbest program possible:

/** array.rexx */

a. = 0
a.0 = 10
DO i = 1 TO a.0; a.i = i; END

SAY array_string("a.") -- prints 1 to 10
SAY alen -- prints "ALEN" because it doesn't exist in global scope


/* Returns string representation of an array, stem. passed as first arg. */
    PARSE ARG _arrayvar .
RETURN _array_string()

_array_string: PROCEDURE EXPOSE (_arrayvar)
    alen = VALUE(_arrayvar || 0)
    str = ""
    DO i = 1 TO alen
        IF i > 1 THEN str = str || ", "
        str = str || VALUE(_arrayvar || i)

So… I've made a global variable "a." full of numbers. PROCEDURE makes a local variable context until you hit RETURN; you should never work at global scope if you can avoid it. So to pass a. in, I have to bounce through a global function array_string(), set a global var _arrayvar to whatever arg was given, which calls a local function _array_string and the paren in EXPOSE (_arrayvar) expands that into "a.", and then use VALUE() to dynamically read the variable.

Well, it works. I remember now how crazy complex REXX programs got, with giant global databases being exposed in every function. I bet this is the origin of my "World object" pattern in so many later languages.

This and another dumb example or two ate a couple hours of my brain, but it kinda makes sense again, you know? Interesting for a language I haven't written in anger in 20 years. I went fully back to SHOUTING KEYWORDS, it just makes sense.

The Python version of this is:

#!/usr/bin/env python3

def array_string(arrayvar):
    return ", ".join(map(str, arrayvar))

a = []
for i in range(1, 11): a.append(i)

Which I'd argue is just as stupid, because Python thinks ranges end 1 before the last number, doesn't know how to join numbers with strings, on a large array that map will consume all memory, and is a single-pass interpreter so I have to put the function above the script code; but it is much, much shorter.

REXX is Still the King

Random REXX mention on Fediverse reminded me of good times with it. REXX was originally a scripting language for the IBM /360 series, later OS/2 where I encountered it. There's three main branches: REXX (original, simple procedural language), ooRexx (strict superset adding OOP tools to REXX), and NetRexx (almost-REXX implemented in Java, so it can interact with the entire Java API).

The things it does well are: Simple notation, like BASIC, but it's structured and dynamic: Variables have their NAME as default value, and it's trivial to evaluate strings as code. Variables can also be "stems", either indexed or associative arrays depending on key. a.=0; a.0=10 and you have an 10-element array of 0's (using .0 as length is common). Any command it doesn't recognize is passed to the outside environment, which might be a command-line shell, another program you're scripting, whatever, no special syntax needed. REXX is preposterously fast for a scripting language, and has perfect decimal math (Cowlishaw's main academic area of interest), though it's still not compiled language fast.

OS/2 made great use of it. The E and E/PM editors written in REXX are all about scripting; like Emacs but far more so, there's almost no program except the E script.

Back in the '90s, I wrote a ton of programs for clients (all dreadfully dull line-of-business stuff) which were thousands of lines of REXX with VT100 UI or a little teeny GUI shell in C it controlled and got messages from; my turnaround on a business change could be hours instead of days or weeks for a C-only program. There's somewhere on FTP sites or in my old code archive my QUEST game, which was just a random D&D wilderness crawl hack-and-slash, written the same way, and a huge script for writing a nice config file to generate the impossibly fussy bit-twiddling world files for DikuMUD and CircleMUD.

Down side, by the late '90s OS/2 was shut down, Mike Cowlishaw started doing everything in NetRexx, so the core language languished, and there weren't good ports to Linux or Mac (either System 9 or early OS X). The open-source "Regina" interpreter was almost but not quite compatible, and was very frustrating to debug around. I completely gave up on it around 1999, when Python got usable.

Seems in the last decade they've somewhat recovered, REXX Language Association, aka, and NetRexx all have maintained sites, the old RexxInfo site is as hideous as it was in the '90s, and unmaintained now, but does have a free copy of the REXX Programmer's Reference book which is nicely complete.

The RexxLA symposium is going on as we speak. No livestreams, sadly, but last year's presentation decks are up. You might want to start with Rexx Tutorial for Beginners part 1, part 2, and ooRexx Tutorial.

I'd really like to hear "Rexx from OS/2 to macOS - a travel in time & space"!

% sudo port install oorexx
% cat hello.rexx
/** hello.rexx */

name = input("What is your name? ")
say "Hello," reverse(name) || "!"

input: procedure
    parse arg prompt
    call charout ,prompt
    return linein()

% rexx hello.rexx
What is your name? Mark
Hello, kraM!

Works fine. The default I/O commands are a little weird so I rewrote that input function almost from muscle memory. PULL var and PUSH x operate on a stack and get uppercased, PARSE PULL var is very powerful and lets you interpolate strings for parsing input (you can also use it on function args, as seen here), but here all I want is a complete line as a function. SAY is a cutesy form of CALL LINEOUT ,whatever, (the missing first arg to CHAROUT or LINEOUT is the output file name/handle). Note the two ways to call a function: y=f(x) or CALL f x depending on if it has a return value. I write everything lowercase, modern REXX is case-insensitive, but historically it was an uppercase-only language, so I always SHOUT THE KEYWORDS when talking about them.

I didn't get far into ooRexx back in the day; I don't think most of its "enhancements" are needed to a nice simple language, but there's places where stems aren't a sufficient abstract data structure and the like.

This looks like fun to play with again, though I wouldn't expect to ship anything useful in it. The one problem is there's no REPL. You can actually make a simple REPL with just DO FOREVER; PARSE PULL line; INTERPRET line; END but there's a lot of error-handling and structured stuff that won't work in that. I think I have a real REPL in my code? I'll go looking in a bit.

Modern C 2.0

Fantastic book about C as actually used in modern code-bases. Interesting structure of levels 0-3, each of which covers a cross-section of topics at an understanding level. If you know everything in the summary already, you can just skip ahead to the parts you do want detail on.

If the Benefits of Software are So Great…

"When we start cataloging the gains in tools sitting on a computer, the benefits of software are amazing. But, if the benefits of software are so great, why do we worry about making it easier—don’t the ends pay for the means? We worry because making such software is extraordinarily hard and almost no one can do it—the detail is exhausting, the creativity required is extreme, the hours of failure upon failure requiring patience and persistence would tax anyone claiming to be sane. Yet we require that people with such characteristics be found and employed and employed cheaply."
—Richard P. Gabriel, Patterns of Software

Design Patterns

It is sometimes suggested by well-meaning language enthusiasts that "My language is complete and powerful, so design patterns don't apply here!" Sadly, they are incorrect.

Design patterns happen in every language. The "Gang of Four" Design Patterns book just collected the ones observed in Smalltalk, and ported them to C++, later rewrites to Java, etc. These are not recipes to blindly follow, but examples meant to show you how to find and regularize the ones in your code.

It's somewhat difficult to see them unless you've read Christopher Alexander's books, and written a lot of programs in some language, and specifically looked for the places where you repeat a structure for livability's sake. Just as it's hard for an architect to make a path where people will want it, unless they first observe how people live and get around that space, and then convert the ad-hoc trails people follow into paths.

Smalltalk is an extremely expressive language (it failed in the market because every ST program is IDE-specific), it has closures, allows you to very trivially make new control structures; it doesn't need a hack like macros because the entire language is that freeform. And this is where the GoF authors observed these paths being made by themselves and other developers, not just in limited BDSM languages like Java.

So, a little light reading:

Tower of Babble

Programmers almost compulsively make new languages; within just a few years of there being computers, multiple competing languages appeared:

It proliferated from there into millions; probably half of all programmers with 10+ years of experience have written one or more.

I've written several, as scripting systems or toys. I really liked my Minimal script in Hephaestus 1.0, which was like BASIC+LISP, but implemented as it was in Java the performance was shitty and I had better options to replace it. My XML game schemas in GameScroll and Aiee! were half programmer humor, but very usable if you had a good XML editor. Multiple apps have shipped with my tiny lisp interpreter Aspic, despite the fruit company's ban on such things at the time. A Brainfuck/FORTH-like Stream, working-but-incomplete tbasic, and a couple PILOT variants (I think PILOT is hilariously on the border of "almost useful").

Almost every new language is invented as marketing bullshit based on a few Ur-languages:

  • C++: Swift
  • Java: Javascript (sorta), C#, Go
  • Awk: Perl, Python, PHP, Julia
  • C: Rust
  • Smalltalk: Objective-C
  • Prolog: Erlang, Elixir
  • ALGOL: C, Pascal, PL/1, Simula, Smalltalk, Java
  • LISP: Scheme, ML, Haskell, Clojure, Racket
  • BASIC: None, other than more dialects of BASIC.
  • FORTRAN: None in decades, but is the direct ancestor of ALGOL & BASIC.
  • COBOL: None in decades.

A few of these improve on their ancestors in some useful way, often performance is better, but most do nothing new; it's plausible that ALGOL 68 is a better language than any of its descendants, it just has mediocre compiler support these days.

Certainly I've made it clear I think Swift is a major regression, less capable, stable, fast, or even readable than C++, a feat I would've called impossible except as a practical joke a decade ago. When Marzipan comes out, I'll be able to rebuild all my 15 years of Objective-C code and it'll work on 2 platforms. The Swift 1.0 app I wrote and painfully ported to 2.0 is dead as a doornail, and current Swift apps will be uncompilable in 1-2 years; and be lost when Apple abandons Swift.

When I want to move my Scheme code to a new version or any other Scheme, it's pretty simple, I made only a handful of changes other than library importing from MIT Scheme to Chez to Chicken 4 to Chicken 5. When I tested it in Racket (which I won't be using) I had to make a handful of aliases. Probably even CLISP (which is the Swift of LISPs, except it fossilized in 1994) would be 20 or 30 aliases; their broken do iterator would be hard but the rest is just naming.

Javascript is a pernicious Herpes-virus-like infection of browsers and desktops, and nothing can ever kill it, so where it fits the problem, there's no reason not to use it. But there's a lot it doesn't do well.

I was leery of using FreePascal because it has a single implementation (technically Delphi still exists, but it's $X,000 per seat on Windows) and minimal libraries, and in fact when it broke on OS X Mojave, I was disappointed but I-told-you-so.

I'm not saying we should quit making new Brainfuck and LOLCODE things, I don't think it's possible for programmers to stop without radical brain surgery. But when you're evaluating a language for a real-world problem, try moving backwards until you find the oldest and most stable thing that works and will continue to work, not piling more crap into a rickety new framework.

The Biblical reference in the title amuses me, because we know now that it requires no malevolent genocidal war deity scared of us invading Heaven to magically confuse our languages and make us work at cross purposes; anyone who can write and think splinters their thought into a unique language and then argues about it.