I think he started with a point but devolved into a lot of wishful thinking.
Why not focus on the solution rather than hoping someone is going to listen to you complain and make it all better?
I'm sure they could use the help.
Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
21–30 of 59 posts
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#22I think he started with a point but devolved into a lot of wishful thinking. Why not focus on the solution rather than hoping someone is going to listen to you complain and make it all better? I'm sure they could use the help.
Wishful thinking? A lot of what he suggests have straightforward implementations as "built-in" features. (Something that looks "built-in" anyhow.)
Perl tried to be pretty much the language he suggests, but it was put together with a poor sense of language design. Ruby tried to correct Perl's mistakes, but also succumbed to the "kitchen sink" mentality. Python tried to correct many earlier mistakes, but while it was more closely integrated with the underlying OS and still managed to be a relatively simple language, it got too tied up in the underlying OS.
Most of what he's talking about could be implemented with Lisp machine or a Smalltalk VM as OS Kernel. The features he wants "built in" could simply be added to the default class library. Perhaps something based on the Erlang VM could satisfy the multi-core part.
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#23""Go" is just another language written first for the compiler and only secondarily for the programmer --- and stuck in a 70s mindset about the relationship of that
programmer to the (digital) world within which they live and work!"
AKA the New Jersey design approach lives (http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html).
Java is interestingly an at least somewhat successful attempt using the MIT approach (as is Clojure on top of its JVM).
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#24I think he started with a point but devolved into a lot of wishful thinking. Why not focus on the solution rather than hoping someone is going to listen to you complain and make it all better? I'm sure they could use the help.
I thought it was a good rant. It's certainly been a while since I read one like that.
Although I do think he's a little too obsessed with one-liners but that could have been hyperbole on his part.
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#25"Somebody do something about this, before I LOSE MY FUCKING MIND!?!?!"
Um, what, exactly, is stopping the ranter from doing something about it himself? Is there a law that only people born into a special caste are allowed to create programming languages?
Or is he just too lazy to do more than bitch about the world being sub-optimal?
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#26Well, I am doing something about it :-) Look at Babel-17 (www.babel-17.com). It is not ready yet, and for the next few months it will be purely functional, but eventually, you will get it all.
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't say that "languages are tools". While this is technically right, our thoughts are so dependent on programming languages that they can't be considered "mere" tools. Considering they are make us wrap languages around their implementations, rather than around their users.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A hammer is a tool. Therefore "mere" tools can be said to shape ones thoughts.
Yes. I just think programming languages, as mental tools, have much more influence on our thinking than physical tools. It's easy to observe: I have colleagues who don't know currying and lambdas, others who don't find them useful, and others who plainly don't get it. Programmers. I doubt such blindness applies to physical tools. But that may be because I'm not proficient in manual works.
That said, even if I am wrong, "languages are just tools" is still harmful. This phrase is often followed by statements like "the choice of languages don't matter that much", or "don't whine about your language". These are valid to the extent you have to take into account existing code (read: past mistakes), and team expertise (read: ignorance). However, they tend to overstate these issues. For any big enough project, the technical merits of a language trumps anything else.
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#28[deleted]
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't say that "languages are tools". While this is technically right, our thoughts are so dependent on programming languages that they can't be considered "mere" tools. Considering they are make us wrap languages around their implementations, rather than around their users.
I can understand your point, but I came to the conclusion (after 20+ languages) that thinking in just one language can be quite harmful to find a good solution for a problem. Actually PG puts it really nicely [1]: "The right way to solve that problem, I think, is to separate the meaning of a program from the implementation details." "What program would one like to write? Whatever is least work. Except not quite: what…
You are absolutely right. Alas, this is mostly applicable when you still have the choice of the languages you will use or build to solve your problem.
When we have settled for one language, though, no matter what we do, it greatly influences our thinking. For instance, I know and love Ocaml and Haskell, yet when I do C++, I have to think in C++ to a great extent. If I think more abstractly (declarative description of my problem, proper separation of concerns, algebraic properties…), I can guarantee the C++ translation will be utterly unreadable, because the mismatch is too great.
Re: Programming languages, operating systems, despair and anger
#30Well, I am doing something about it :-) Look at Babel-17 (www.babel-17.com). It is not ready yet, and for the next few months it will be purely functional, but eventually, you will get it all.
But if I learn babel17 won't I become a traitor!