Found something but I don't know what to make of it

[C. Olson]

So I was in the process of compiling all the libs for the addons and
poking around looking for some info when I ran into a site in a
language I can only guess is Chinese:

http://blog.xole.net/category.php?k=ioLanguage

Seems to be lots of Io code but I can't decipher all of what it does.
Is this a translation of existing info? Anyone know?

[Brian Mitchell]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 22:05, C. Olson <halo.immortal@...> wrote:
> So I was in the process of compiling all the libs for the addons and
> poking around looking for some info when I ran into a site in a
> language I can only guess is Chinese:
>

Japanese actually.

> http://blog.xole.net/category.php?k=ioLanguage
>
> Seems to be lots of Io code but I can't decipher all of what it does.
> Is this a translation of existing info? Anyone know?

Doesn't look like stuff I recognize from other posts so I imagine this
user has been doing their own investigation. The GC write up is quite
interesting (relating to tweaking the incremental step used in
collection).

Brian.

[reus reus]

It's Japanese.Not Chinese...

2008/7/18 C. Olson <halo.immortal@...>:

>   So I was in the process of compiling all the libs for the addons and
> poking around looking for some info when I ran into a site in a
> language I can only guess is Chinese:
>
> http://blog.xole.net/category.php?k=ioLanguage
>
> Seems to be lots of Io code but I can't decipher all of what it does.
> Is this a translation of existing info? Anyone know?
>
>  
>

[Steve Dekorte]

On 2008-07-17, at 7:05 PM, C. Olson wrote:

> So I was in the process of compiling all the libs for the addons and
> poking around looking for some info when I ran into a site in a
> language I can only guess is Chinese:
>
> http://blog.xole.net/category.php?k=ioLanguage
>
> Seems to be lots of Io code but I can't decipher all of what it does.
> Is this a translation of existing info? Anyone know?

Here's a translation, but I'm still not  very clear:

http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://blog.xole.net/category.php%3Fk%3DioLanguage&usg=ALkJrhjVqXbSXGowxw8i2ZyTgQC-b85dUA

[C. Olson]

--- In iolanguage@..., Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

>
>
> On 2008-07-17, at 7:05 PM, C. Olson wrote:
>
> > So I was in the process of compiling all the libs for the addons and
> > poking around looking for some info when I ran into a site in a
> > language I can only guess is Chinese:
> >
> > http://blog.xole.net/category.php?k=ioLanguage
> >
> > Seems to be lots of Io code but I can't decipher all of what it does.
> > Is this a translation of existing info? Anyone know?
>
> Here's a translation, but I'm still not  very clear:
>
>

http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://blog.xole.net/category.php%3Fk%3DioLanguage&usg=ALkJrhjVqXbSXGowxw8i2ZyTgQC-b85dUA
>
thanks for the info. I thought it may be of use to the community when
I stumbled upon it.

[Friedrich]

Dear IoUsers I've a few questions
1) are you doing Webdevelopment in Io? Is  there anything comparable
to Rails or Seaside in Io?
2) Do you know of a usage of Io as extension language? I'm thinking of
embedding Io into a C application for "scripting" it.
3) Since ages makefiles are the "standard" for unixes, and well since
ages they do use automake+autoconf for that also. Wouldn't that be an
excellent area for Io? I found this whole automatic stuff
terrible. Have you ever tried e.g Anjuta and the tons of code it
generates for a simple hello world? And what all is needed for it m4,
automake, Shell etc....

Regards
Friedrich

[Brian Mitchell]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 02:48, Friedrich <frido@...> wrote:
> Dear IoUsers I've a few questions
> 1) are you doing Webdevelopment in Io? Is there anything comparable
> to Rails or Seaside in Io?

I haven't done anything on the web in Io but others have. I am sure
someone else can elaborate?

> 2) Do you know of a usage of Io as extension language? I'm thinking of
> embedding Io into a C application for "scripting" it.

Yes. This works really well and is easy to do. Generally, the really
easy part is calling to Io and back to C and having everything work
(i.e. there aren't limitations like lua's pcall or coroutines --
LuaCoco does solve those though -- similar techniques are used in Io).

The best way to get started IMO, is to read the Io source code. The
initialization code is pretty straight forward and is easy to play
around with once you get an IoState setup.

> 3) Since ages makefiles are the "standard" for unixes, and well since
> ages they do use automake+autoconf for that also. Wouldn't that be an
> excellent area for Io? I found this whole automatic stuff
> terrible. Have you ever tried e.g Anjuta and the tons of code it
> generates for a simple hello world? And what all is needed for it m4,
> automake, Shell etc....

It has worked well for Ruby if you have used rake at any point (my
preferred make replacement by far). Io would have similar advantages
though ()'s aren't always as descriptive as do...end so maybe some
meta-programming would be needed to make it read well. Of course,
someone is going to chime in and say that they think otherwise.
Regardless, Io's dynamicity and flexibility make it a good option and
would be great for experimentation. (I consider Io the experimenter's
language these days. Scheme has lost its holy ground.)

Brian.

[Steve Dekorte]

Hi Friedrich,

On 2008-07-22, at 11:48 PM, Friedrich wrote:
> 1) are you doing Webdevelopment in Io? Is  there anything comparable
> to Rails or Seaside in Io?

I've done some small web things with Io but haven't written any  
framework for it yet.

What most people mean by a "web" framework is actually 2% web related  
code and 98% dealing with the complexities of the object-relational  
impedance mismatch problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch

For Io, I'd like to avoid dealing with this entirely and instead use a  
proper arbitrary graph database. This is what the PDB addon is working  
towards.

> 2) Do you know of a usage of Io as extension language? I'm thinking of
> embedding Io into a C application for "scripting" it.

I've heard of people using it for game scripting and it's used for  
scripting Pixar's "It" image processing application:

https://renderman.pixar.com/products/tools/it.html

> 3) Since ages makefiles are the "standard" for unixes, and well since
> ages they do use automake+autoconf for that also. Wouldn't that be an
> excellent area for Io? I found this whole automatic stuff
> terrible. Have you ever tried e.g Anjuta and the tons of code it
> generates for a simple hello world? And what all is needed for it m4,
> automake, Shell etc....

Pixar also uses Io for "It"'s build system and Io's own addon build  
system is written in Io.

- Steve

[Nick Guenther]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Friedrich,
>
> On 2008-07-22, at 11:48 PM, Friedrich wrote:
>> 1) are you doing Webdevelopment in Io? Is there anything comparable
>> to Rails or Seaside in Io?
>
> I've done some small web things with Io but haven't written any
> framework for it yet.
>
> What most people mean by a "web" framework is actually 2% web related
> code and 98% dealing with the complexities of the object-relational
> impedance mismatch problem:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch
>
> For Io, I'd like to avoid dealing with this entirely and instead use a
> proper arbitrary graph database. This is what the PDB addon is working
> towards.

oooooh thank you so so much. This term my job has been to write an
ORM. It's awful.
I've sort of been envisioning "what would the world look like if it
were made of Io?" and thinking about reviving IoL4 with moves in this
direction. What if instead of files to store data we just had Io
objects, and an application was -actually- a method call on some
object in your graph?

>> 2) Do you know of a usage of Io as extension language? I'm thinking of
>> embedding Io into a C application for "scripting" it.
>
> I've heard of people using it for game scripting and it's used for
> scripting Pixar's "It" image processing application:
>
> https://renderman.pixar.com/products/tools/it.html

You mean "IceMan" is secretly Io+pixarlibs?
because like, oh man, so much win.

-Nick

[Friedrich]

Steve Dekorte <steve@...> writes:

> Hi Friedrich,
> On 2008-07-22, at 11:48 PM, Friedrich wrote:
>> 1) are you doing Webdevelopment in Io? Is there anything comparable
>> to Rails or Seaside in Io?
> I've done some small web things with Io but haven't written any
> framework for it yet.
> What most people mean by a "web" framework is actually 2% web related
> code and 98% dealing with the complexities of the object-relational
> impedance mismatch problem:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch
> For Io, I'd like to avoid dealing with this entirely and instead use a
> proper arbitrary graph database. This is what the PDB addon is working
> towards.

Oh,  well that's all too true. However the RDBs are there any they
will be around for the forseeable future they really are the backbone
of all "persistence". As I worked on the university there was a great
"hype" for OODBs, but they still have not taken off. We ourselves have
used the  OO facilities of PostgreSQL for mapping Common Lisp stuff to
tables. That has worked quite nicely. Howerver I sometimes wonder if
it wouldn't be better to put some more effort on relation related
languages....

But its's not entirly the mapping it's also on adding state to a
stateless program and it's in some way "embedding" of HTML into a
programming languages. I'm not fully sure but it  seems the Seaside
approache would be a nice fit for Io  also. And there they have based
it on components which they reander in a sort of Smalltalk HTML...

Io has very much from Smalltalk and so I guess this would probably the
"normal" way. Another are in which I surely would prefer Io, Ruby or
Smalltalk is the whole UI description stuff. XAML and whatever they
are currently called is such a verbose mish-mash. You won't the
meaning behind all that mark-up. Now assume a desrciption in Io, Ruby
or Smalltalk....
>> 2) Do you know of a usage of Io as extension language? I'm thinking of
>> embedding Io into a C application for "scripting" it.
> I've heard of people using it for game scripting and it's used for
> scripting Pixar's "It" image processing application:
> https://renderman.pixar.com/products/tools/it.html
I'm more thinking in terms of well one can say scriptable editor
and/or  information manager. My idea is along lines to write the base
in C and then have wrappers to scripting languages to allow for
extending etc. In principal as Eclipse but not based on Java and not
"just" hacked on for different languages. More in the way of Emacs,
Smalltalk IDEs.... I can't get it out of my head since ages.

I can  not the idea out of mind of a seamless (more than less if
possible) integration of some HLL like Io with some C (which still is
the backbone or nearly all used stuff theses days) I'm more than aware
of the  shortcomings of it in C, but with in some regard C is
unbeatable. I have software hangign around since the 80ies which I
simply can compile today. I would not dare that in nearly anything
else, besides maybe Common Lisp or Smalltalk.

Howerver I see a few trouble spots. One if it is memory management, as
I see it there is currently just one "serious" GC contender in C
that's the Boehm Weisser GC, but most scripting languages do use there
own GC (some can be made use with GC, but that's another story)
however we do also have a lot of portable libraries like libapr,
libnspr, glib-2 which have there own way of  doing things. What I
really like to avoid is having the need of manual memory management
and then in different approaches.  Just see the negative example. COM,
BSTR etc. I don't know how many stuff there is but it seems at least
three different styles. It's a pain in the back to get the running.

It's simply to error prone to get that right. The same probblem of
getting, retaining and freeing memory just exist in every binding I
have seen....
>> 3) Since ages makefiles are the "standard" for unixes, and well since
>> ages they do use automake+autoconf for that also. Wouldn't that be an
>> excellent area for Io? I found this whole automatic stuff
>> terrible. Have you ever tried e.g Anjuta and the tons of code it
>> generates for a simple hello world? And what all is needed for it m4,
>> automake, Shell etc....
> Pixar also uses Io for "It"'s build system and Io's own addon build
> system is written in Io.
Hm, I probably should have another look.

Regards
Friedrich

--
Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim
Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus

[Steve Dekorte]

On 2008-07-24, at 10:37 PM, Friedrich wrote:

> Steve Dekorte <steve@...> writes:
>>
>> What most people mean by a "web" framework is actually 2% web related
>> code and 98% dealing with the complexities of the object-relational
>> impedance mismatch problem:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch
>> For Io, I'd like to avoid dealing with this entirely and instead  
>> use a
>> proper arbitrary graph database. This is what the PDB addon is  
>> working
>> towards.
> Oh,  well that's all too true. However the RDBs are there any they
> will be around for the forseeable future they really are the backbone
> of all "persistence". As I worked on the university there was a great
> "hype" for OODBs, but they still have not taken off. We ourselves have
> used the  OO facilities of PostgreSQL for mapping Common Lisp stuff to
> tables. That has worked quite nicely. Howerver I sometimes wonder if
> it wouldn't be better to put some more effort on relation related
> languages....

PDB is neither an OODB or a image-based system like Smalltalk. It's  
simply an arbitrary graph database.

As for interfacing with existing RDBMs, there are already addons for  
that. My point is that RDBMs are a less than ideal choice for *new*  
development projects, which is what most people are doing with Ruby on  
Rails.

- Steve

[Paulo Köch]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
> My point is that RDBMs are a less than ideal choice for *new* development
> projects, which is what most people are doing with Ruby on Rails.

What would you suggest, then?

[Steve Dekorte]

On 2008-07-27, at 3:33 AM, Paulo Köch wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Steve Dekorte <steve@...>  
> wrote:
>> My point is that RDBMs are a less than ideal choice for *new*  
>> development
>> projects, which is what most people are doing with Ruby on Rails.
>
> What would you suggest, then?

An arbitrary graph database would be more ideal as it would eliminate  
the mismatch between that database and the object system that  
relational databases have.

[Friedrich]

Just wondering is ther a wiki written in Io?

Regards
Friedrich

[Jeremy Tregunna]

There was one a while ago called IoWiki but it will need updating if
you can find it these days

Regards,

Jeremy Tregunna

Sent from my iPhone

On 29-Jul-08, at 8:41, "Friedrich" <frido@...>
wrote:

> Just wondering is ther a wiki written in Io?
>
> Regards
> Friedrich
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Danya Alexeyevsky]

Yup, http://xeny.net/IoWiki

It may even be runnable on newer Io implementations via a wrapper. It
did in the winter when I tried it last time.

[Friedrich]

Thanks, I'll have a look.

Regards
Friedrich

[Friedrich]

"Danya Alexeyevsky" <me.dendik@...> writes:

> Yup, http://xeny.net/IoWiki
> It may even be runnable on newer Io implementations via a wrapper. It
> did in the winter when I tried it last time.
I'm sorry, but where can one download it from? It's not on the pages
they wrote it is....

Regards
Friedrich

[Danya Alexeyevsky]

Looks like http://xeny.net/files/iowiki/ is a mirror of
ftp://xeny.net/iowiki/ and is working. (Instructions about the wrapper
are on the page CurrentIoWrapper on the wiki).

Cheers.