Introducing the LAVA programming language

[Michael Aivaliotis]

• An experimental object-oriented rapid application development (RAD) language with parameterized ("virtual") types, refactoring, and extensive static checks.
  

[Tomi Maila]

There are more of them: Lava, Lava and lava

[i2dx]

sad but true: lava.org isn't the one and only really hot thing on the planet any more ;(

[PeterB]

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Mar 9 2008, 06:51 PM)

• An experimental object-oriented rapid application development (RAD) language with parameterized ("virtual") types, refactoring, and extensive static checks.
  

Is the following point the most important requirement they can muster to the top of their "Urgent problems in current programming languages" list ? If so then perhaps we should really feel sorry for them as they acknowledge their text based state of the art languages are still in the dark ages.

1. Programs should no longer be "written"

It's time to finally overcome the antediluvian technology of software production using text editors. Programs should no longer be "written" but constructed/composed in Lego-like fashion from basic constructs, using

structure editors

rather than text editors. Particularly the executable portions of programs are the last bastions of textual programming that remain to be captured by

"point-and-click" technology

.

[Justin Goeres]

Michael, perhaps you should write to him and ask him to add LAVA to his list of things you shouldn't confuse "lava" with.

[Norm Kirchner]

I can already hear the distant flapping of the NI Eagle's Mammoth Wings of Patent-dom preparing to smote all who put Graphical and Programming in the same sentence.

[Yair]

QUOTE(Norm Kirchner @ Mar 10 2008, 06:58 PM)

I can already hear the distant flapping of the NI Eagle's Mammoth Wings of Patent-dom preparing to smote all who put Graphical and Programming in the same sentence.

You've done it now. Consider yourself smitten.

http://lavag.org/old_files/monthly_03_2008/post-1431-1205179778.gif' target="_blank">

[crelf]

QUOTE(Yen @ Mar 10 2008, 03:10 PM)

You've done it now. Consider yourself smitten.

Smitten (adjective)

1. struck, as with a hard blow.

2. grievously or disastrously stricken or afflicted.

3. very much in love

You meant the last definition, right?

[i2dx]

QUOTE(PeterB @ Mar 10 2008, 10:27 AM)

Is the following point the most important requirement they can muster to the top of their "http://lavape.sourceforge.net/doc/html/Unsolved.htm' target="_blank">Urgent problems in current programming languages" list ? If so then perhaps we should really feel sorry for them as they acknowledge their text based state of the art languages are still in the dark ages.

1. Programs should no longer be "written"

It's time to finally overcome the antediluvian technology of software production using text editors. Programs should no longer be "written" but constructed/composed in Lego-like fashion from basic constructs, using

structure editors

rather than text editors. Particularly the executable portions of programs are the last bastions of textual programming that remain to be captured by

"point-and-click" technology

.

pah, that's marketing mumbojumbo.

If this should "work" there has to either be ONE complete architecture from the bottom of all software to the top for ALL the software which is written in the future or the superduperueberversatileerrorcompensationg virtual standardized interface - and that's absolutely unrealistic. If software is no longer programmed, but constructed, this implies, that the framework you compose your software with is able to solve all software problem, now and forever.

Just to go a little bit further: If all software could be *just* composed, that would mean:

1. mankind has reached the point where creativity and genius is obsolete

2. you could automate the software creation process ==> which means, if software can create all the software, it has it's own consciousness and you know what that means ... (I hope you saw Terminator 3 ...)

[Ton Plomp]

QUOTE(i2dx @ Mar 10 2008, 10:10 PM)

2. you could automate the software creation process ==> which means, if software can create all the software, it has it's own consciousness and you know what that means ... (I hope you saw Terminator 3 ...)

Nah, I saw Space Odissey 2001.

Oh wait that happened already.

QUOTE

No no. It's LabVIEW. We spent most of LV8.0 working on the underlying artificial intelligence. It now mostly writes itself. It has been generating libraries that it thinks it needs for some time now. By now, it should've generated all the library VIs that people on OpenG, NI, LAVA and DevZone combined could think of to write. Unfortunately, it sucks as an artist. Its icons are all text or plaid and its dialogs make a Linux command line seem user friendly. We'd let it ship more libraries, but it does take time to clean up the UI. That's really all we programmers do these days. Oh, and fix the text. LabVIEW decided that most human languages sucked and only deigns to speak to us in Esperanto. Since none of us speak or read Esperanto, we spend hours studying diagrams so we can rename the VIs as whatever it is that they do. It's not really arrogant, more like a teenager out to prove it knows more than its parents. Really, the only disturbing sign so far is the 200 node VI that took hours to puzzle out. It generates a stereogram that if you stare at it long enough displays the words "Hal9000 is my hero."

As a side note,

LV

's only comment when we asked it why it didn't have perfect automatic wire routing was, "The rat always complains about the path to the cheese. But the cheese is happy the path is not so direct."

http://forums.lavag.org/Check-if-File-or-Folder-Existsvi-Returns-TRUE-with-empty-path-input-t5194.html#' target="_blank">Source

Ton