On 01/18/2011 12:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Found through Reddit, similar things can be said about D2:
http://kirkwylie.blogspot.com/2011/01/scala-considered-harmful-for-large.html
I think that article is bunk.
Large Java programs (as related to me by corporate Java programmers)
tend to be excessively complex because the language is too simple.
Too often people think that with a simple language, the programs created
with it must be simple. This is dead wrong. Simple languages lead to
complex, incomprehensible programs.
Oh, how true!
Think at Lisp, for instance, probably one of the most simple languages
ever. This simplicity, precisely, forces to create tons of abstraction
levels just to define notions not present in the language --due to
simplicity-- but absolutely needed to escape too low-level programming.
This is on the semantic side. On the syntactic one, all of these
"custom" notions look the same, namely (doSomethingWith args...) (*)
instead of each having a distinct outlook helping the reader & decode
the code.
Great!
(if (< IQ 150) findAnotherPL haveFunWithLISP)
On the other hand: which notions & distinctions should be defined in a
language? D2 may have far too many in my opinion, but which ones should
stay, and why?
Denis
(*) and if you're happy actual collection lists look like [e1 e2 e3],
not (e1 e2 e3)
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
