Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
Off topic... but the following article by Paul Graham has been one of my all time favorites for the last few years... http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html Eliot Miranda wrote: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote: According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html So, we're not that bad, eh? :) I like what he says about patterns: If you try to solve a hard problem, the question is not whether you will use a powerful enough language, but whether you will (a) use a powerful language, (b) write a de facto interpreter for one, or (c) yourself become a human compiler for one. We see this already begining to happen in the Python example, where we are in effect simulating the code that a compiler would generate to implement a lexical variable. This practice is not only common, but institutionalized. For example, in the OO world you hear a good deal about patterns. I wonder if these patterns are not sometimes evidence of case (c), the human compiler, at work. When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't powerful enough-- often that I'm generating by hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write. A very good explanation to 'pointy-haired' why 'mainstream' language are not best choice.. as well as good illustration that in order to compete and stay popular, all mainstream languages will slowly converge to lisp. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On 3/9/2012 5:02 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html So, we're not that bad, eh? :) I think were pretty good. :) I personally don't think anything comes close to Smalltalk when it comes to approachability and power. Smalltalk brings power to people who aren't necessarily hackers. I am not a professional programmer. My day job requires very little computer. But, I have a vision for things outside of my day job. Smalltalk empowers me better than anything else I've seen. If you take someone who doesn't have their very soul invested in Emacs, git, C/C++/Java/Python/languageOfChoice, and other tool sets. Or if they are simply willing to come to Smalltalk on its terms and when in Smalltalk do Smalltalk. Then you are offered great power with very approachable tools. And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that will is greatly as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. There is much in the image I don't understand. That's okay. It doesn't stop me from doing what I want to do. Most people who find Smalltalk unapproachable, seem to want to bring a lot of baggage with them. They don't want to start fresh. This can be a problem for them. They need to let go, start fresh, learn what is here. Then evaluate how they can apply Smalltalk in their set of tools. And personally that is really how any language and tool set should be evaluated, though that is rarely the case. I don't believe it is to our advantage to lose our soul to try to make Pharo into the image the other tools that are already available. Why have a Smalltalk flavored Python? Let Pharo be Pharo. I think the more we can empower the person who can come to Pharo afresh, newbie or old pro, regardless of experience. The more we empower them to create their future. The better the future for Pharo. Pharo, power to create! Pharo, empowering you to create! Pharo, empowering you to create the future! Jimmie
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On 3/10/2012 10:29 AM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: [snip] And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that will is greatly as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. ^^ And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that is being greatly improved as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. Ugh! Changed thoughts mid-sentence and forgot to correct. I hate seeing that in my emails. Apologies. Jimmie
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On 10 March 2012 17:41, Jimmie Houchin jlhouc...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/10/2012 10:29 AM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: [snip] And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that will is greatly as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. ^^ And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that is being greatly improved as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. Ugh! Changed thoughts mid-sentence and forgot to correct. I hate seeing that in my emails. Apologies. No need for apologies :) Don't feel yourself as an invited guest. Feel yourself at home. Jimmie -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
+1. Look at fast dragging 1.4 (gorgeous!) and in 1.3, implementors and senders - much better than what we had before. Bill From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Jimmie Houchin [jlhouc...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:41 AM To: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading.. On 3/10/2012 10:29 AM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: [snip] And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that will is greatly as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. ^^ And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that is being greatly improved as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. Ugh! Changed thoughts mid-sentence and forgot to correct. I hate seeing that in my emails. Apologies. Jimmie
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On 10 March 2012 19:45, Schwab,Wilhelm K bsch...@anest.ufl.edu wrote: +1. Look at fast dragging 1.4 (gorgeous!) and in 1.3, implementors and senders - much better than what we had before. gorgeous fast-dragging? what is it? it is hard to see the wood for people like me, who spending all the time inside it :) Bill From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Jimmie Houchin [jlhouc...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:41 AM To: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading.. On 3/10/2012 10:29 AM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: [snip] And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that will is greatly as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. ^^ And I believe in Pharo's case, that approachability is an area that is being greatly improved as the appearance, browsers and editors are getting improved and polished. Ugh! Changed thoughts mid-sentence and forgot to correct. I hate seeing that in my emails. Apologies. Jimmie -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
Brilliant! I shared this on Facebook this morning, and three of my nerdy friends have then shared it further, so there's a lot in that article that hits home. Many thanks for the link! -- Cheers, Peter On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Ben Coman b...@openinworld.com wrote: Off topic... but the following article by Paul Graham has been one of my all time favorites for the last few years... http://www.paulgraham.com/**nerds.htmlhttp://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
[Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html So, we're not that bad, eh? :) A very good explanation to 'pointy-haired' why 'mainstream' language are not best choice.. as well as good illustration that in order to compete and stay popular, all mainstream languages will slowly converge to lisp. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote: According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html So, we're not that bad, eh? :) I like what he says about patterns: If you try to solve a hard problem, the question is not whether you will use a powerful enough language, but whether you will (a) use a powerful language, (b) write a de facto interpreter for one, or (c) yourself become a human compiler for one. We see this already begining to happen in the Python example, where we are in effect simulating the code that a compiler would generate to implement a lexical variable. This practice is not only common, but institutionalized. For example, in the OO world you hear a good deal about patterns. I wonder if these patterns are not sometimes evidence of case (c), the human compiler, at work. When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't powerful enough-- often that I'm generating by hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write. A very good explanation to 'pointy-haired' why 'mainstream' language are not best choice.. as well as good illustration that in order to compete and stay popular, all mainstream languages will slowly converge to lisp. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko. -- best, Eliot
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On 10 March 2012 00:33, Eliot Miranda eliot.mira...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote: According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html So, we're not that bad, eh? :) I like what he says about patterns: If you try to solve a hard problem, the question is not whether you will use a powerful enough language, but whether you will (a) use a powerful language, (b) write a de facto interpreter for one, or (c) yourself become a human compiler for one. We see this already begining to happen in the Python example, where we are in effect simulating the code that a compiler would generate to implement a lexical variable. This practice is not only common, but institutionalized. For example, in the OO world you hear a good deal about patterns. I wonder if these patterns are not sometimes evidence of case (c), the human compiler, at work. When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't powerful enough-- often that I'm generating by hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write. Yeah.. in re: he says: I was actually surprised at how badly Python did. I had never realized, for example, that a Python lambda-expression couldn't contain the same things as a named function, or that variables from enclosing scopes are visible but not modifiable. Neither Lisp nor Perl nor Smalltalk nor Javascript impose either restriction. I can't see what advantage either restriction brings you. I can see how Python's gradual, ongoing (= incomplete) evolution would have produced them. So Occam's Razor implies that the latter is the reason Python is this way. I.e. these restrictions are bugs, not features. A very good explanation to 'pointy-haired' why 'mainstream' language are not best choice.. as well as good illustration that in order to compete and stay popular, all mainstream languages will slowly converge to lisp. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko. -- best, Eliot -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Re: [Pharo-project] Enjoyed the reading..
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com wrote: According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html So, we're not that bad, eh? :) A real scientific analysis ;) proves that Smalltalk is far more powerful than Lisp (but sadly less powerful than Haskell) : http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2010/11/revenge-of-smalltalk.html Laurent A very good explanation to 'pointy-haired' why 'mainstream' language are not best choice.. as well as good illustration that in order to compete and stay popular, all mainstream languages will slowly converge to lisp. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
