Re: [fonc] languages

On 6/6/2011 6:05 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Julian Leviston > wrote: Is a language I program in necessarily limiting in its expressibility? Yes. All communication architectures are necessarily limiting in their expressiveness (

Re: [fonc] languages

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Julian Leviston wrote: > Is a language I program in necessarily limiting in its expressibility? > Yes. All communication architectures are necessarily limiting in their expressiveness (in the sense defined by Matthias Felleisen). For example, can't easily introduc

Re: [fonc] languages

On 6/6/2011 10:29 AM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: Alan, Thanks for the correction. IAL was one of the proposed names for the ALGOL, wasn't it? The reason why this name popped up from my grad days was because something as complicated as designing a new programming language was considered a fun thin

Re: [fonc] languages

Inline On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Alan Kay wrote: > It was ... and is mostly associated with what came to be called Algol 58, but > not Algol 60. > > Another way to look at it is that "almost all systems are difficult to > maintain down the line" -- partly because they were not designed wit

Re: [fonc] languages

rogramming languages. However, I don't think this is necessary, but more an artifact of incomplete design. Cheers, Alan From: K. K. Subramaniam To: Alan Kay Cc: fonc@vpri.org Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 10:29:49 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] languages Alan, Thanks for

Re: [fonc] languages

ial. And the acronym was > actually "Jules' Own Version of the International Algebraic Language" > > Cheers, > > Alan > > > > > > From: K. K. Subramaniam > To: fonc@vpri.org > Cc: Alan Kay > Sent: M

Re: [fonc] languages

2011 8:34:08 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] languages On Sunday 05 Jun 2011 12:16:33 AM Alan Kay wrote: > People of my generation (50 years ago) were used to learning and using > many syntaxes (e.g. one might learn as many as 20 or more machine > code/assembler languages, plus 10 or more HL

Re: [fonc] languages

On Sunday 05 Jun 2011 12:16:33 AM Alan Kay wrote: > People of my generation (50 years ago) were used to learning and using > many syntaxes (e.g. one might learn as many as 20 or more machine > code/assembler languages, plus 10 or more HLLs, both kinds with more > variability in form and intent tha

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

Leibs To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 9:59:33 PM Subject: Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages) Alan, Your memory for great dissertations is amazing. I don't think the Phil Abrams APL machine was ever actually built but It had some rea

Re: [fonc] languages

On 6/6/2011 12:29 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote: I've heard of an IDE called VisualAge (I think?) that was written in Smalltalk but could parse and to a degree reason about other languages, but I've never seen it. Have you looked for that thing, or was it just not so great? not really looked a

Re: [fonc] languages

I've heard of an IDE called VisualAge (I think?) that was written in Smalltalk but could parse and to a degree reason about other languages, but I've never seen it. Have you looked for that thing, or was it just not so great? On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:55 PM, BGB wrote: > On 6/5/2011 11:03 PM, C.

Re: [fonc] languages

On 6/5/2011 11:03 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM, BGB > wrote: I would personally like to see an IDE which was: more-or-less language neutral, to what extent this was practical (more like traditional standalone editors); not t

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > You would like Fortress: http://labs.oracle.com/projects/plrg/faq/NAS-CG.pdf This first link should have been to the Great Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(programming_language) A better link to samples of both ASCII and rende

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > Another approach I think is really cool is actually just using mathematical > notation as one representation of what's otherwise basically an s-expr, in > which case I think one is having some cake and eating it too. I've been > playing wit

Re: [fonc] languages

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM, BGB wrote: > I would personally like to see an IDE which was: > more-or-less language neutral, to what extent this was practical (more like > traditional standalone editors); > not tied to or hard-coded for particular tools or build configurations > (nearly everyth

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

: Fundamentals of New Computing > Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 7:33:40 PM > Subject: Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages) > > HP had a version of APL in the early 80's that included "structured" > conditional statements and where performanc

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

On 6/5/2011 7:06 PM, David Leibs wrote: I love APL! Learning APL is really all about learning the idioms and how to apply them. This takes quite a lot of training time. Doing this kind of training will change the way you think. Alan Perlis quote: "A language that doesn't affect the way yo

Language in Test (was Re: [fonc] languages)

I'm actually not talking about the potty mouths:) APL is up there on my list now, but it hasn't knocked Prolog out of the top slot. I've done a bunch of test automation. I really enjoy testing because on a good day it can approach something reminiscent of science, but OTOH the test code I end

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

*Sent:* Sun, June 5, 2011 7:06:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] > languages) > > I love APL! Learning APL is really all about learning the idioms and how > to apply them. This takes quite a lot of training time. Doing this kind > of training w

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

f New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 7:33:40 PM Subject: Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages) HP had a version of APL in the early 80's that included "structured" conditional statements and where performance didn't depend on cramming your entire

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

Fundamentals of New Computing > *Sent:* Sun, June 5, 2011 7:06:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] > languages) > > I love APL! Learning APL is really all about learning the idioms and how > to apply them. This takes quite a lot of traini

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

mentals of New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 7:06:55 PM Subject: Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages) I love APL! Learning APL is really all about learning the idioms and how to apply them. This takes quite a lot of training time. Doing this kind of tra

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

I love APL! Learning APL is really all about learning the idioms and how to apply them. This takes quite a lot of training time. Doing this kind of training will change the way you think. Alan Perlis quote: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth

Re: Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > > Isn't Nile kind of like a "read-also" APL? I think you're referring to Nial. See also J and K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language) > On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Florin Mateoc wrote:

Re: [fonc] languages

an Kay wrote: Yep, and yep Cheers, Alan From: Florin Mateoc To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 3:51:23 PM Subject: Re: [fonc] languages But wasn't APL called a "write-only language", which would make it in a way a polar opposi

Terseness, precedence, deprogramming (was Re: [fonc] languages)

Looks write-only to me, but I haven't learned it. I've also heard that if you really just want to get some math done, APL is as efficient keyboard-wise in that domain as Perl is in the domains where Perl excels (like extracting information from log files.) Perl is also regularly harangued for be

Re: [fonc] languages

_ > From: Florin Mateoc > To: Fundamentals of New Computing > Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 3:51:23 PM > Subject: Re: [fonc] languages > > But wasn't APL called a "write-only language", which would make it in a way > a polar opposite of Smalltalk? > > I

Re: [fonc] languages

Yep, and yep Cheers, Alan From: Florin Mateoc To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 3:51:23 PM Subject: Re: [fonc] languages But wasn't APL called a "write-only language", which would make it in a way a polar opposite o

Re: [fonc] languages

ecial treatment, and not just from an under the covers, optimization point of view. Thank you, Florin From: Alan Kay To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 2:30:23 PM Subject: Re: [fonc] languages Check out APL, designed by a very good mathe

Re: [fonc] languages

t about to some extent -- of being able to specify right and left precedences, but this was rejected as leading to real needless complexities. Cheers, Alan From: Florin Mateoc To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 11:17:04 AM Subject: Re: [

Re: [fonc] languages

tor character. Best, Florin From: Alan Kay To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 2:46:33 PM Subject: Re: [fonc] languages Smalltalk was certainly not the first attempt -- and -- the most versatile Smalltalk in this area was the first Sm

Re: [fonc] languages

tend to create poor extensions during the heat of > programming and debugging. And that an opportunity for cohesion in an > extensible language is rarely seized. (Consider just how poor is the > cohesion in a much smaller part of all this -- polymorphism -- even though > it is of gr

Re: [fonc] languages

is of great benefit to everyone to have really strong (and few) polymorphisms.) Cheers, Alan From: Julian Leviston To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 10:44:07 AM Subject: [fonc] languages Hi, Is a language I program in necessari

[fonc] languages

Hi, Is a language I program in necessarily limiting in its expressibility? Is there an optimum methodology of expressing algorithms (ie nomenclature)? Is there a good or bad way of expressing intent? Are there any intent languages in existence? Are there any pattern or algorithm languages? Is a

Re: [fonc] languages vs. systems [was: Coding Standards]

AIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fundamentals of New Computing" Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:33 PM Subject: [fonc] languages vs. systems [was: Coding Standards] Hi, "Alejandro F. Reimondo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: For people that understan

[fonc] languages vs. systems [was: Coding Standards]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it repulsive, the ideal is not to make the bootstrap prettier, it is > to get to the point where you too can contribute (i.e. there's a > working "Smalltalk-80" application). > Does this mean a "Smalltalk-80" application is

[fonc] languages vs. systems [was: Coding Standards]

Hi, "Alejandro F. Reimondo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For people that understand "sustainability" as the ability to > continue evolving, other tools are available and better > than languages. > The language is not as important as the actions made on > the system itself. So I hear you talk