On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
1. Grammar independence - People speak different languages and
perceive logic through different symbols. It is the nature of
life and knowledge.
I want to focus on that. If multiple developers need to work on
the same project, h
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 13:08:46 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
Sure some systems use cutting edge techniques and management.
I think Jason brought up the idea that programmers by tradition
think a particular way and this probably will delay change IMO.
Pushing Mythical Man Month and Mo
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 12:47:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Systems are realized in a different way today than in the 80s,
for sure.
Sure some systems use cutting edge techniques and management.
Maybe I'm oblivious to that since I was born in late 80s.
In some ways I think we st
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 12:13:37 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
I guess obvious in hindsight.
I think that book is overrated, it was a debate book for the 80s
where startups sold snake-oil... Yes, lecturers at universities
toss it to their students for debate, because it was a classic,
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 10:49:45 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 10:09:57 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
Brookes noted long ago that new language design would yield
diminishing returns:
http://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks-NoSilverBullet.pdf
That and the fac
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 10:09:57 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
Brookes noted long ago that new language design would yield
diminishing returns:
http://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks-NoSilverBullet.pdf
That and the fact that hardware/OS vendors have incentive to
push entrenched languages to
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 09:03:04 UTC, crimaniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 20:11:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
But I think the most powerful concept now is _software
synthesis_. The basic idea being that you specify the
constraints and let the computer write the actual
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
Any more thoughts?
In our times programming languages exist and are adopted for
market reasons.
Because the basic needs have been fulfilled, better alternatives
like D can get relatively ignored by the market for a long time.
W
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 05:43:37 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the StackOverflow thing but it
would be cool if people didn't waste so much time having to do
the same boilerplate code.
What I meant is that often what we seek is recipes for solving
specific p
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 20:11:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
But I think the most powerful concept now is _software
synthesis_. The basic idea being that you specify the
constraints and let the computer write the actual code, or some
variation over that.
It's called Prolog.
Subj
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 01:45:50 UTC, Christopher
Bergqvist wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
Any more thoughts?
I empathize with you Jason. It's kind of like biological
evolution that has progressed through organisms spawning new
generations and
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 23:14:27 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
Is it possible that one could develop or modify an existing
programming language that can adapt in such a way to provide
maximum unity between programmers?
What are th
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 20:11:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
It seems that many programmers get dissatisfied with the state
of something and try and branch off and create something that
suits them. The evolution of progr
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
Any more thoughts?
I empathize with you Jason. It's kind of like biological
evolution that has progressed through organisms spawning new
generations and dying, and some humans' search for immortality.
Being free from aging and
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
Is it possible that one could develop or modify an existing
programming language that can adapt in such a way to provide
maximum unity between programmers?
What are the properties of the perfect language? To be able to
create it
I guess "program synthesis" might be a less confusing term:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/sumitg/pubs/synthesis.html
Very interesting topic!
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:10:21 UTC, Jason Jeffory wrote:
It seems that many programmers get dissatisfied with the state
of something and try and branch off and create something that
suits them. The evolution of programming is the evolution of
life in some way.
Is it possible that one
No, I mean the real kinda of evolution, not algorithmic mimicking!
It seems that many programmers get dissatisfied with the state of
something and try and branch off and create something that suits
them. The evolution of programming is the evolution of life in
some way.
Is it possible that o
18 matches
Mail list logo
