Python and Flaming Thunder

[Dave Parker]

> Personally (and borrowing from Python), I'd prefer something more
> like:
>
> Write "Fa".
> Repeat 8 times:
>     Write "-la".

I actually kind of prefer that, too.  Or

Repeat 8 times write "-la".

I'll think about it.  Thank you for suggesting it.

On May 20, 3:40 pm, MRAB <goo... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 4:20 am, Dave Parker <davepar... at flamingthunder.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > I <davepar... at flamingthunder.com> wrote:
> > > > Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> > > > motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python.
> > > On May 14, 8:30 pm, John Salerno <johnj... at NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's truly disappointing.
>
> > I guess I could have stated that better.  Flaming Thunder is a labor
> > of love for me.  I've programmed in almost every language since
> > FORTRAN and Lisp, and Flaming Thunder is the language I've always
> > wished the others were.
>
> > For one example, I've always preferred compiled languages because
> > they're faster.  So Flaming Thunder is compiled.
>
> > For another example, I've always preferred languages that are English-
> > like because it's easier to return to your code after several years
> > and still know what you were doing (and it's easier for someone else
> > to maintain your code).
>
> > For over 5 years I've been working on Flaming Thunder unpaid and on my
> > own, getting the back-end up and running.  8-by-8 shotgun cross
> > compilers written in assembly language, that can fit all of the
> > libraries for both the 32- and 64-bit versions of FreeBSD, Linux, Mac
> > OS X and Windows into a single executable file that's less than 180K,
> > aren't written overnight.
>
> > So now that I've released it, it's extremely gratifying that people
> > think it's cool enough to actually pay $19 for it.  That gives me lots
> > of motivation (and buys enough time) for me to add features to it as
> > fast as possible.
>
> > To whit: you pointed out the awkwardness in Python of having to
> > declare a for-loop variable when you only wanted to loop a specific
> > number of times and didn't need the variable.  Last week, Flaming
> > Thunder had the same awkwardness.  If you wanted to loop 8 times:
>
> > for i from 1 to 8 do <statement>
>
> > you still had to use a variable (in this case, i).  This week, I've
> > added two new for-loop variations that fix that awkwardness, and also
> > allow you to explicitly declare an infinite loop without having to
> > rely on idiomatic constructs such as while-true.  Examples of the two
> > new variations (for-forever and for-expression-times):
>
> > Write "Fa".
> > For 8 times do write "-la".
>
> Personally (and borrowing from Python), I'd prefer something more
> like:
>
> Write "Fa".
> Repeat 8 times:
>     Write "-la".
>
> > For forever do
> >   (
> >   Write "Do you know the definition of insanity? ".
> >   Read response.
> >   ).
>
> Repeat:
>     Write "Do you know the definition of insanity? ".
>     Read response.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -