Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > I do not have an answer to your question. Different people function > differently. > > But, if the question is directed to me, then the answer is "I do > play with lots of programming languages, and fluent in quite a few of > them, with totally different paradigms -- I would not be here, if it > were otherwise". Now, if you ask me whether in a large project I > would recommend that we use all of them, then my first order answer is > NO! > > Maybe there is a confusion about appreciating diverse programming > languages and appreciating the set of tools we should use to deliver a > coherent, attractive, scalable, and maintainable project. > > I don't want my scarce resource (time) to be sunk in a black hole. > When it comes to tenure, the number of languages one appreciates counts > for exactly zero. Software *development* counts for zero -- even in > the area of software. The number of papers count highly; grants are > important. > I don't want to write about people writing software. I would prefer to > write about software, largely based on experience. For that, I prefer > invest the "wasted time" in something that can make a difference; that > people use. I see an opportunity in Axiom. I would hate it becomes a > black hole where all sorts of languages get sunk into because of > "diverse programming language appreciation." The reasons why we should > add new tools to our tool bagage should be their effectiveness to > solve specific problems we are facing, not just because we want to be > diverse. There is something to be said for breath, there is also > something to be said for depth. There must be a balance somewhere > given the limited resources we have. > I will second this. I keep promising myself I'll learn Ruby, because it looks like a much better scripting language than Perl. But I maintain a few thousand lines of mostly my own Perl code, and I'm not going to port that to Ruby. Nor am I going to give up R for Ruby. And I've already given up Fortran and C and I've nearly given up Lisp.
I intend to learn the highest level of Axiom -- whether or not I ever get around to any of the underlying languages is an open question, given that I want Axiom as a scientific applications programming language. > | I think Icon was a worthy predecessor of the currently very > | popular web scripting languages like perl and python that came > | later but did a lot of the same things (not necessarily as > | well ): > > You mean SNOBOL? :-) > > [ The whom I work for currently is a long term SNOBOL > hacker; yet he invented a different language that will not be suitable > for discussion here :-p And we do work in an environment where we > highly appreciate diverse languages and paradigms. ] > > | > | http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/index.htm > | > | Icon has venerable history rather similar to Axiom's, beginning > | in 1977: > > Thanks; not mean to be rude -- but I'm an Icon hacker. I spent long > time studying Icon. For example, I wanted to add generators (not > co-routines) to C++; among other things I digested Icon's > implementation. That was not too long ago. > > -- Gaby > > > _______________________________________________ > Axiom-developer mailing list > Axiom-developer@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer > > -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://linuxcapacityplanning.com _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
