This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 21, 2018. It is now read-only.
forked from hmc-cs111-fall2014/piconot
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
design.txt
88 lines (66 loc) · 4.26 KB
/
design.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
================================================================================
Grammar #1: MathBot
================================================================================
Who is the target for this design, e.g., are you assuming any knowledge on the
part of the language users?
A: The target for this design is people who are excessively enthusiastic about
math. We are assuming familiarity with arithmetic operations and mathetmatical
equations, but they do not need to actually understand how they work. No
mathematical skill is required, but enthusiasm for math is encouraged!
Why did you choose this design, i.e., why did you think it would be a good idea
for users to express the maze-searching computation using this syntax?
A: It is very similar to how picobot is already implemented, but the programs
you can make in it look more interesting. Also, because we allow the user to
leave out parts of the equation, it allows them more freedom and felxibility.
What behaviors are easier to express in your design than in Picobot’s original
design? If there are no such behaviors, why not?
A: Behaviors with a lot of 'Anything' directions on the left side would be
easier to implement in this language. If the user knows about these defaults,
their rules for picobot can be shorter. Also, the user does not have to
remember what order to put the information about the surroundings in because
they can put them in whatever order they'd like, instead of NEWS order.
What behaviors are more difficult to express in your design than in Picobot’s
original design? If there are no such behaviors, why not?
A: Most things are about equally difficult in our mathbot language and the
original picobot language. In a way, stating the original surroundings can
be more difficult if you're specifying information for each direction because
you have to specify both the direction and the information about it, whereas
with the original picobot, the user would only have to put a letter representing
the direction, 'X', or '*'.
On a scale of 1–10 (where 10 is “very different”), how different is your syntax
from PicoBot’s original design?
4. It is still similar in overall structure, but we have added extra symbols
and given the user more flexibility.
Is there anything you don’t like about your design?
Nope.
================================================================================
Grammar #2: ShakespeareBot
================================================================================
Who is the target for this design, e.g., are you assuming any knowledge on the
part of the language users?
A: The target of this language are Shakespearean enthusiasts. We assume that the
user has basic knowledge of Shakespearean characters, and to be completely
idiomatic, the user should fully utilize the freedom of ShakespeareBot and
write each rule in iambic pentameter.
Why did you choose this design, i.e., why did you think it would be a good idea
for users to express the maze-searching computation using this syntax?
A: We chose this design because we felt that there was not enough fluency in
the original Picobot syntax. It's very limiting to type out a maze navigation
rule using the limited character set. Why should we as programmers be limited
to * and x when we should be allowed to use the whole alphabet?
What behaviors are easier to express in your design than in Picobot’s original
design? If there are no such behaviors, why not?
A: ShakespeareBot rules are more fluent and like natural language, so it may
be easier for the user to type out.
What behaviors are more difficult to express in your design than in Picobot’s
original design? If there are no such behaviors, why not?
A: ShakespeareBot rules are longer than original Picobot rules by design. It
may also be more challenging for the user to write appropriately idiomatic
rules.
On a scale of 1–10 (where 10 is “very different”), how different is your syntax
from PicoBot’s original design?
A: ShakespeareBot is probably a 8 on this scale. It is dramatically different
syntax from the original design because it contains a lot of syntactic sugar.
Is there anything you don’t like about your design?
A: We do not like the fact that user can abuse the freedom offered in
ShakespeareBot and write basically gibberish as rules