Introduction to PNF - a

Posted 04-28-2017 at 08:55 AM by des_a

See my introduction to PNF for more what the current version of PNF is like. So that you don't need a login for my other site, I'll reproduce the 3 files given there, here. Though I would probably recommend getting a login there too at some point.

Posted in Uncategorized

Views 1895 Comments 26

« Prev Main Next »

Total Comments 26

Comments

Page 2 of 2

I cannot really better explain to you what sets it apart, just that it is different. I had not found a language that will, in the future, or now, allow you to program an OS. There is the old P-CODE system that used to work for the PC, but it appears to be a dead project now. It probably didn't have very modern features either. And it probably wasn't easy enough to "tweak" at the binary level.

Therefore I created this language. No, you can't write OSs in it yet, or anything, but I'm writing code that will allow you to create an OS later, when I learn enough about OS programming today.

What needs to be done to make that possible is:

* Write the definition/design of what instructions will be available to application programmers, and what will be available to OS programmers.

* Rewrite the interpreter as an OS, using today's OS technology. Basically, what needs to be done is write an OS that is ONLY the interpreter and surrounding code to make that work. It needs not be a duplicate of the code which hopefully runs on both Linux and Windows as is.

That's where this is going, but it's just not there yet. The first step that's a major step is to get the first version out there for application programming. I need more languages that me or someone else made in order to do this step. Otherwise, it's more or less ready for that now.

Posted 05-02-2017 at 04:11 AM by des_a des_a is offline

	All the working examples I have, other than tests are in the tutorial. I have the skill level to write the interpreter, but not the skill level in itself to write other programs. That's only because I need other languages on top of it. Then, my first "real" program, will probably be itself in itself.
	Posted 05-02-2017 at 04:12 AM by des_a

P.S. - I was hoping at a point such as this, that I could get some donations of real programs, but not years spent or anything on them.

Posted 05-02-2017 at 04:14 AM by des_a

	Okay. Now I hope I've answered more of your questions again. Since it won't let me do anything more here, like post files, check out more of my blog entries which will let me do that.
	Posted 05-02-2017 at 04:15 AM by des_a

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for trying to answer my questions, but we are now so far removed from my motivations for wanting to help you with your project that I simply must end it here for the time being.

Let me be very clear that my interest in your project has always, and only, been to help and encourage someone who wants to learn. In order to try to better help I have tried to understand your claims for your language, that it is somehow "revolutionary" and "more powerful than java" and numerous others.

To that end I had suggested that you try to explain the core concepts on which your language is based, what makes it revolutionary and sets it apart from others.

Quote:

I would suggest that you start with a single core concept on which others are to be built. Explain it in the clearest and simplest terms possible, in a single document or place which you can update as required. Then, once you can see that your audience has grasped that concept, place the next brick on that foundation, with the same simplicity and clarity. Before long you will have a self-supporting superstructure of concepts and sufficient understanding among others to begin to build some real excitment!

After spending much time (hours) reviewing previous posts and the tutorial and other documentation you have uploaded here, I still find no clear answer that says, "Here is my core revolutionary idea in a nutshell...". In the code posted in previous threads, and in the documentation you have uploaded here, I see no basis for claims of anything other than the type of simple virtual machine written by eager computer science students.

In my most recent post I again requested that concept as my first, most important item:

Quote:

1. The distinguishing, compelling concept which sets this language apart from xyz-p-code, explained in 25 words or less.

And the answer was, again...

Quote:

I cannot really better explain to you what sets it apart, just that it is different.

To continue with my own attempt at clarity, I simply have no interest in learning your language for any other purpose than to try to better help you understand established compiler concepts and methods. Without any identifiable distinguishing foundation principle for it, I no longer have even curiosity about it, sorry to say. So I think I have provided all the help I can at this point.

As for the licensing, I read only enough to know that although it uses the word 'freedom", it is far from a free software license by any common measure. I had hoped it might be GPL or BSD or similar, but it is unique. I do not install any software that requires that I try to understand a license because I am not a lawyer and my best understanding would be pointless in any legal frame of reference. So I rely on the common acceptance of licenses such as GPL, BSD, Apache, etc., and reject all others, and I must reject yours on that same basis. Your license has protected you in the sense that I did not download the code.

Again, I simply am not interested enough to try to digest the license, build and debug the code written for another platform, install required libraries, manually look up opcodes and try to run the example program for a language which has not a single clear purpose for me. That is far outside the scope of my participation in your threads and this blog.

On a side comment, I would strongly encourage you to adopt a well known free software license and business model. In particular, if you are going rely on the help of freely given advice and assistance, it simply is not equitable (and would be considered a bit under-handed by many) to then release the result as proprietary code. You should consider that.

I mean all of this in the most helpful way and hope that you will consider it and not take offense. I am not criticising your work, I am saying that of itself your language has no particular interest for me. My interest was always to help you learn, I hope that even this is helpful toward that end.

Anyway, I wish you the best, but I cannot go further down this particular path.

Robert

Posted 05-03-2017 at 10:48 PM by astrogeek astrogeek is offline

Quote:

As for the licensing, I read only enough to know that although it uses the word 'freedom", it is far from a free software license by any common measure. I had hoped it might be GPL or BSD or similar, but it is unique. I do not install any software that requires that I try to understand a license because I am not a lawyer and my best understanding would be pointless in any legal frame of reference. So I rely on the common acceptance of licenses such as GPL, BSD, Apache, etc., and reject all others, and I must reject yours on that same basis. Your license has protected you in the sense that I did not download the code.

Again, I simply am not interested enough to try to digest the license, build and debug the code written for another platform, install required libraries, manually look up opcodes and try to run the example program for a language which has not a single clear purpose for me. That is far outside the scope of my participation in your threads and this blog.

On a side comment, I would strongly encourage you to adopt a well known free software license and business model. In particular, if you are going rely on the help of freely given advice and assistance, it simply is not equitable (and would be considered a bit under-handed by many) to then release the result as proprietary code. You should consider that.

Yes. I agree. The more I study it, the more I'm unhappy with my current version of my liscense as well, though I am very happy with the way of versioning I have come up with for programs/documents. My versioning is a little bit different than most peoples, but at some point I will make conversions to and from ordinary "Linux/Microsoft" style versioning.

I'm going to leave the topic entirely for now of my particular language. If people would have had interest in continuing, I'd have taken them through all the tools, but maybe it's not ready for that yet. I expected a first version, no matter what it contained, to "flop" anyway, but I'd get feedback to make it better. Here it's not even released past a development phase, and I'm finding it's flopping now. So I will take that into consideration, and as mentioned before, I will change the main topic of this blog again. Whether you participate or not, and I might go back to using the forums and the blog now for that, as I can see some questions popping up in my mind.

I will change my topic of interest to liscensing, and US copyright laws, with touches on international copyright laws. Hopefully there aren't any state laws to worry about here... By the way, I can never seem to spell any type of liscense word right... So I'll start by modifying my liscense again, and post the liscense alone.

I DON'T know when it gets to the right point yet whether I will go to a GPL style liscense or not at this point. I'm very unhappy with the type of liscense I've created, but am happy with some concepts, which is what makes me think that tweaking it is the way to go. I will NOT put the liscense or any liscense under a liscense. Treat the liscense as public domain literature, if possible. Feel free to copy directly or indirectly in any way, just don't do anything such as copyright it in a way that would make anybody else not able to use it (maybe I do want to put the liscense under a liscense??? But then what about the liscense's liscense???) Anyway, as long as someone did not prevent anyone else from using the liscense as a liscense it's fine... Steal it for your direct modification purposes if you wish (not really stealing then, if I'm giving you permission). Anyway, an interesting topic that I will probably want to cover later on too.

However, for educational purposes, I'll pretend like I'm sure like I want to use this liscense. Then I will try to make myself happy with it's effects. Maybe I will be happy and like it. Maybe I won't. I'm not a lawyer, just someone who can program a computer. I can't hire lawyers to create it, as that would take funds I don't have.

I would like other programmers to get involved with creating this liscense (not directly creating, just giving hints). Then perhaps I'll write something the free software foundation will like to use.

Quote:

On a side comment, I would strongly encourage you to adopt a well known free software license and business model. In particular, if you are going rely on the help of freely given advice and assistance, it simply is not equitable (and would be considered a bit under-handed by many) to then release the result as proprietary code. You should consider that.

I do want my program to be a definite type of free software, or something very similar to it, maybe an entirely new type. Nevertheless, it would NOT do to have software not free enough. Not the software I'm creating. The fact that it doesn't quite sound like it matches this definition makes me a little unhappy. I simply want to be a little bit more specific than something like what I've read of the GPL. By the way, I use many liscenses, and try to follow them all. It just depends on the software, what it does, and whether I need it or not, and whether I can live with their specifics of their liscense. But I don't want mine to be propetery in the same sense, as, say, Microsoft, or Unix was. I would hope that it will not fit that definition at all.

My eventual OS that I want to write, my "BIG" OS, (which would be written in what this language PNF becomes), will HAVE to have it's own special liscense, whether it's considered to be propetory or not. Why? That's because it will have to make some rules about what I call liscense file. These programs (for which the exact language has yet to be written or it's syntax thought about), will replace the standard way of liscensing a program.

I provide the tools, programmers and "users" of my system provide the implementation. Hopefully it's a good one and one I agree with, but if not, that's the risk of providing the tools.

Here is a brief explanation of the concept of liscense files:

Code:

* Every file has a twin file, if you do not provide your own, a default is chosen for you.

* The twin file is a liscense file

* The liscense file is a program written in a special language

* The liscense file dictates what you can and can't do with the actual file. It dictactes it in a very specific manor. The OS will deny you the right to do anything with the file that the liscense file does not allow.

There would have to be rules written into the liscense of the OS, that would make or double make the act of getting around the liscense files, and using them for harmful purposes, effectively illegal. Other than that, it would want to follow whatever pattern most of my software follows with what you can and can't do with it.

So if that's going to become a reality, I need to learn about liscenses, and learn more about them. So IF for NO OTHER REASON, I need to study liscenses and go further with the development of the one I have, whether I use them or not for this simple software. It's without further ado, that I learn these things beginning now.

Posted 05-04-2017 at 12:28 AM by des_a des_a is offline

Page 2 of 2