On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:11:24 -0700, wrote:
from
I am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/
language.
to
Especially for old "C"-programmers like me.
suggests defining your language using BNF and building the compiler
with YACC. Anyway, how I've done similar projects for 30 years. You
could gussy it up with Prolog, but who wants to go down that path (at
least if you want it distributable)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:11:24 -0700, wrote:
from
I am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/
language.
to
Especially for old "C"-programmers like me.
suggests defining your language using BNF and building the compiler
with YACC. Anyway, how I've done similar projects for 30 years. You
could gussy it up with Prolog, but who wants to go down that path (at
least if you want it distributable)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Prolog.

Been a long while since I heard that. I thought it was long buried.

tom
K0TAR

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:49:41 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Prolog.

Been a long while since I heard that. I thought it was long buried.

Hi Tom,

The current iteration is so vastly removed from the early days as to
be unrecognizable.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:49:41 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Prolog.

Been a long while since I heard that. I thought it was long buried.

Hi Tom,

The current iteration is so vastly removed from the early days as to
be unrecognizable.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Any open source version(s) you would recommend? I may have to have a
look again.

Thanks.

tom
K0TAR

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:43:00 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Any open source version(s) you would recommend? I may have to have a
look again.

Hi Tom,

I would like to say Trilogy, which is also a declarative language, but
long gone by nearly 20 years.

On the active front, there is XPCE/Prolog (google this) out of
Amsterdam. It appears to be the product of a one-man show and to my
mind suffers from what he thinks the language should be (and not what
it was). I suppose my attitude would be better if I could have read
the users manual which, unfortunately, mimics all the poorly written
user manuals that have come down the pike since PL/M.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 16 Jun., 02:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:11:24 -0700, wrote:

fromI am searching for an antenna programming tool/compiler/preprocessor/
language.
to
Especially for old "C"-programmers like me.

suggests defining your language using BNF and building the compiler
with YACC. Anyway, how I've done similar projects for 30 years. You
could gussy it up with Prolog, but who wants to go down that path (at
least if you want it distributable)?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Due to the similarity to 4nec2 and nec2 format, I implemented a very
simple line based parser. Of course, it looks like C, but the pre-
processer has limitations. It is kept left simple except the
expression parser for calculation (fully c compatible). I started with
very simple one and the implementation growed up till now. It is not
finished yet - a big mile stone for documentation must be realized.
Also testing is not finished. And I found new bugs, when I implemented
a regression test model. But it is a good time now, to implement some
usefull features or ideas.

Regard,
Aziz

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:54:02 -0700, wrote:

Of course, it looks like C, but the pre-
processer has limitations.

Hi Aziz,

A syntax looking like C for the purpose of describing an antenna
design engine meta-language is not a particularly good match. The
difference is between it being procedural whereas the meta-language
would, in my estimation, be more useful if it was declarative. BNF is
very simple to implement either, so it would seem the effort should be
invested in a tool that was oriented towards the user rather than a
programmer. Besides, C is a pretty crummy language with even more
horrid library syntaxes (assembler is far more elegant).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
programmer. Besides, C is a pretty crummy language with even more
horrid library syntaxes (assembler is far more elegant).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A lot of people like to think themselves programmers, real programmers
use C/C++. (Weekend programmers use visual basic)

C is simply a macro language which calls assembler procedures and
functions--Dennis Richie was a real assembly language programmer, he
simply designed a "shorthand" language for using assembler--C itself was
written in assembler--nowadays C can compile and link itself ... a real
C programmer will add to the C libraries and include files using
assembler definitions, procedures and functions. While every subroutine
of a C program is a function, they can be written as procedures which
are only cloaked as functions. Example:

#include iostream

void helloworldprocedure(void)
{
cout "hello world!" endl;
}

void main(void)
{
helloworldprocedure();
}

.... takes no parameters, returns none ...

I think most C programmers prefer to program in assembly (but with
windows allowing NO direct access of devices, peripherals, memory or
disk--why bother, assembly can only be used as a wrapper to call windows
libs/dlls/activex/scripts/etc., or custom ones--linux can be made to
allow direct access), however, C adds a productivity factor of
magnitudes over assembly.

No other language offers the efficiency of program "character text"
(source code) to actual binary code compiled/linked by C. Indeed, any C
compiler I have ever seen gives a option to spit out assembler source
.... and the assembler source so generated is quite capable of being
assembled/linked by an assembler/linker for the platform in question.

C simply has no rules which cannot be broken, even if it breaks all
programming rules, and you want to override them, go ahead! (bill gates
won't let you break windows rules though :-( )--C is only structured if
you program in a structured style. For that reason alone, it is not a
good language for newbie programmers ...

JS

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:13:37 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:
Example:

#include iostream

void helloworldprocedure(void)
{
cout "hello world!" endl;
}

void main(void)
{
helloworldprocedure();
}

... takes no parameters, returns none ...

Horrid examples of language, these are like the proverbial turds in
the punch bowl at a party.

I think most C programmers prefer to program in assembly (but with
windows allowing NO direct access of devices, peripherals, memory or
disk--why bother, assembly can only be used as a wrapper to call windows
libs/dlls/activex/scripts/etc., or custom ones--linux can be made to
allow direct access),

Most C programmers are Neanderthals with their skills frozen in the
70s. There is at least one Windows Assembler out there, it's free and
has been available for years from Steve Gibson at:
http://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm
His executables perform network connections in file sizes of barely
more than 5K up to a massive 22K.

however, C adds a productivity factor of
magnitudes over assembly.

Bull Looney. This kind of syrupy rationale was composed to sooth the
nerves of Dilbert's pointy haired boss. It merely reveals that many
coders need training wheels to allow them to ride faster when
designers could have walked there in half the time.

C is NOT a user language.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
C is NOT a user language.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Quite obviously, you are not a software engineer ... even is someone is
willing to pay you for such.

JS