On Thursday, 22 March 2012 08:56:17 UTC, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:35:16 -0700, Steve Howell wrote: > > > On Mar 21, 11:06 am, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> > > wrote: [snip]. > > Different programming languages are good for different things because > they have been designed to work in different problem/solution spaces. > Although I dislike C with a passion, I do recognise that it is good for > when the programmer needs fine control over the smallest details. It is, > after all, a high-level assembler. Likewise for Forth, which lets you > modify the compiler and language as you go. > > Some languages are optimized for the compiler, some for the writer, and > some for the reader. So are optimized for numeric work, others for > database access. Some are Jack-Of-All-Trades. Each language encourages > its own idioms and ways of thinking about programming. > > When it comes to programming, I say, let a thousand voices shout out. > Instead of imagining a single language so wonderful that every other > language is overshadowed and forgotten, imagine that the single language > is the next Java, or C, or even for that matter Python, but whatever it > is, it's not ideal for the problems you care about, or the way you think > about them. Not so attractive now, is it? > > > > The optimistic view is that there will be some kind of inflection point > > around 2020 or so. I could imagine a perfect storm of good things > > happening, like convergence on a single browser platform, > > You call that a perfect storm of good things. I call that sort of > intellectual and software monoculture a nightmare. > > I want a dozen browsers, not one of which is so common that web designers > can design for it and ignore the rest, not one browser so common that > nobody dares try anything new. > > > > nearly > > complete migration to Python 3, further maturity of JVM-based languages, > > etc., where the bar gets a little higher from what people expect from > > languages. Instead of fighting semicolons and braces, we start thinking > > bigger. It could also be some sort of hardware advance, like screen > > resolutions that are so amazing they let us completely rethink our views > > on terseness, punctuation, code organization, etc. > > And what of those with poor eyesight, or the blind? Are they to be > excluded from your "bigger" brave new world? > > > > -- > Steven
On Thursday, 22 March 2012 08:56:17 UTC, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:35:16 -0700, Steve Howell wrote: > > > On Mar 21, 11:06 am, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> As for syntax, we have a lot of "real" domain specific languages, such > >> as English, math and logic. They are vetted, understood and useful > >> outside the context of programming. We should approach the discussion > >> of language syntax from the perspective of trying to define a unified > >> syntactical structure for real these DSLs. Ideally it would allow > >> representation of things in a familiar way where possible, while > >> providing an elegant mechanism for descriptions that cut across domains > >> and eliminating redundancy/ambiguity. This is clearly possible, though > >> a truly successful attempt would probably be a work of art for the > >> ages. > > > > If I'm reading you correctly, you're expressing frustration with the > > state of language syntax unification in 2012. You mention language in a > > broad sense (not just programming languages, but also English, math, > > logic, etc.), but even in the narrow context of programming languages, > > the current state of the world is pretty chaotic. > > And this is a good thing. Programming languages are chaotic because the > universe of programming problems is chaotic, and the strategies available > to solve those problems are many and varied. > > Different programming languages are good for different things because > they have been designed to work in different problem/solution spaces. > Although I dislike C with a passion, I do recognise that it is good for > when the programmer needs fine control over the smallest details. It is, > after all, a high-level assembler. Likewise for Forth, which lets you > modify the compiler and language as you go. > > Some languages are optimized for the compiler, some for the writer, and > some for the reader. So are optimized for numeric work, others for > database access. Some are Jack-Of-All-Trades. Each language encourages > its own idioms and ways of thinking about programming. > > When it comes to programming, I say, let a thousand voices shout out. > Instead of imagining a single language so wonderful that every other > language is overshadowed and forgotten, imagine that the single language > is the next Java, or C, or even for that matter Python, but whatever it > is, it's not ideal for the problems you care about, or the way you think > about them. Not so attractive now, is it? > > > > The optimistic view is that there will be some kind of inflection point > > around 2020 or so. I could imagine a perfect storm of good things > > happening, like convergence on a single browser platform, > > You call that a perfect storm of good things. I call that sort of > intellectual and software monoculture a nightmare. > > I want a dozen browsers, not one of which is so common that web designers > can design for it and ignore the rest, not one browser so common that > nobody dares try anything new. > > > > nearly > > complete migration to Python 3, further maturity of JVM-based languages, > > etc., where the bar gets a little higher from what people expect from > > languages. Instead of fighting semicolons and braces, we start thinking > > bigger. It could also be some sort of hardware advance, like screen > > resolutions that are so amazing they let us completely rethink our views > > on terseness, punctuation, code organization, etc. > > And what of those with poor eyesight, or the blind? Are they to be > excluded from your "bigger" brave new world? > > > > -- > Steven Completely not related to this discussion, but, I just have to say to Steven, I could not have expressed that better. +1 QOTW (albeit a long one) Jon. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
