Xah Lee wrote:
> Computer Language Popularity Trend
>
> This page gives a visual report of computer languages's popularity, as
> indicated by their traffic level in newsgroups. This is not a
> comprehensive or fair survey, but does give some indications of
> popularity trends.
Suggestions:
Prov
Marshall wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time with this very broad definition of aliasing.
How about this definition: Consider three variables, i, j, and k, and
a functional equivalence predicate (EQUIVALENT(i, j) returns true if
for every pure function F, F(i) = F(j)). Now suppose i and j are
EQ
Marshall wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > >
> > > Consider the following Java fragment:
> > >
> > > void foo() {
> > > int i = 0;
> > > int j = 0;
> > >
> > > // put any code here you want
Marshall wrote:
>
> Consider the following Java fragment:
>
> void foo() {
> int i = 0;
> int j = 0;
>
> // put any code here you want
>
> j = 1;
> i = 2;
> // check value of j here. It is still 1, no matter what you filled in
> above.
> // The assignment to i cannot be made to affec
Marshall wrote:
>
> Again, I disagree: it is posible to have mutability without
> pointers/identity/objects.
I think you are wrong, but before I make a complete ass out of myself,
I have to ask what you mean by `mutability'. (And
pointers/identity/objects, for that matter.)
Alan Bawden discusse
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
>~/> ocaml -rectypes
> Objective Caml version 3.08.3
>
># let rec blackhole x = blackhole;;
>val blackhole : 'b -> 'a as 'a =
>
> The problem is, though, that almost everything can be typed once you
> have unrestricted recursive types (e.g. missing a
David Hopwood wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> >
> > The point is that there exists (by construction) programs that can
> > never be statically checked.
>
> I don't think you've shown that. I would like to see a more explicit
> construction of a dy
David Hopwood wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
> > (defun blackhole (argument)
> > (declare (ignore argument))
> > #'blackhole)
>
> This is typeable in any system with universally quantified types (including
> most practical systems with parametric poly
QCD Apprentice wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> >>
> >> The real question is, are there some programs that we
> >> can't write *at all* in a statically typed language, because
> >> they'll *never* be typable?
> >
>
Marshall wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> > Looking back in comp.lang.lisp, I see these examples:
> >
> > (defun noisy-apply (f arglist)
> > (format t "I am now about to apply ~s to ~s" f arglist)
> > (apply f arglist))
> >
> > (def
Marshall wrote:
>
> Yes, an important question (IMHO the *more* important question
> than the terminology) is what *programs* do we give up if we
> wish to use static typing? I have never been able to pin this
> one down at all.
It would depend on the type system, naturally.
It isn't clear to me
David Hopwood wrote:
> > Joe Marshall wrote:
> >>
> >>I do this quite often. Sometimes I'll develop `in the debugger'. I'll
> >>change some piece of code and run the program until it traps. Then,
> >>without exiting the debugger, I&#x
Marshall wrote:
>
> I stand corrected: if one is using C and writing self-modifying
> code, then one *can* zip one's pants.
Static proofs notwithstanding, I'd prefer a dynamic check just prior to
this operation.
I want my code to be the only self-modifying thing around here.
--
http://mail.pyt
Marshall wrote:
> Timo Stamm wrote:
> >
> > This is actually one of the most interesting threads I have read in a
> > long time. If you ignore the evangelism, there is a lot if high-quality
> > information and first-hand experience you couldn't find in a dozen books.
>
> Hear hear! This is an *exc
Marshall wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> >
> > That's the important point: I want to run broken code.
>
> I want to make sure I understand. I can think of several things
> you might mean by this. It could be:
> 1) I want to run my program, even though I know par
Chris Smith wrote:
> Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Assume a language that
> > a) defines that a program is "type-correct" iff HM inference establishes
> > that there are no type errors
> > b) compiles a type-incorrect program anyway, with an establishes
> > rigorous semantics fo
Marshall wrote:
>
> That's really coming home to me in this thread: the terminology is *so*
> bad. I have noticed this previously in the differences between
> structural
> and nominal typing; many typing issues associated with this distinction
> are falsely labeled as a static-vs-dynamic issues, s
Chris Smith wrote:
> Joe Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. That is why there is the qualifier `dynamic'. This indicates
> > that it is a completely different thing from static types.
>
> If we agree about this, then there is no need to con
Chris Smith wrote:
> Joe Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Chris Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Knowing that it'll cause a lot of strenuous objection, I'll nevertheless
> > > interject my plea not to abuse the word "type&quo
Chris Smith wrote:
>
> Knowing that it'll cause a lot of strenuous objection, I'll nevertheless
> interject my plea not to abuse the word "type" with a phrase like
> "dynamically typed".
Allow me to strenuously object. The static typing community has its
own set of
terminology and that's fine.
Xah Lee wrote:
> in March, i posted a essay "What is Expressiveness in a Computer
> Language", archived at:
> http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html
>
> I was informed then that there is a academic paper written on this
> subject.
>
> On the Expressive Power of Programming Langua
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Joe Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> > The problem is that a `name' is a mapping from a symbolic identifier to
> > an object and that this mapping must either be global (with the
> > attendant name collision issues) or withi
Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> I think it's reasonable to make a name a part of functions, classes and
> modules because they may often be involved in tracebacks (in case of
> uncaught errors): to me, it makes sense to let an error-diagnosing
> tracebacks display packages, modules, classes and functions
Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> Is this a Slippery Slope fallacious argument?
> (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlipperySlope)
>
> "if python required you to name every function then soon it will
> require you to name every number, every string, every immediate result,
> etc. And we know that is bad. Therefore re
Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> Your "pragmatic benefits", if such they were, would also apply to the
> issue of "magic numbers", which was discussed in another subthread of
> this unending thread; are you therefore arguing, contrary to widespread
> opinion [also concurred in by an apparently-Lisp-orient
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> > But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not
> > scale. Nor will Python.
>
> Absolutely. That's why firms who are interested in building *seriously*
> large scale systems, like my employer (and suppli
Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:30:42 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
>> Daniel Silva wrote:
>>
>>> Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it might
>>> be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p:
>>> http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/
27 matches
Mail list logo
