Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 288 posts

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#11

Post by Yoric »

DSingularity wrote: post #7
dzdt wrote: post #2

Lamport is famous in part for his work on LaTeX, the document typesetting language. It is Turing complete. Should no one write papers in LaTeX?

When you are writing a paper that requires latex it’s because it requires programming to properly set things up. Producing a typeset paper with latex is part writing and part programming.

Well, in my experience, academics often write with LaTeX because that's what they know how to use. I've had to actually code in (La)TeX for some papers or slides, but that was pretty unusual. Most of the time, I was using it out of inertia, and because I trusted it more than Microsoft Word (which used to be very bad, at the time, I imagine it has grown better).

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#12

Post by nestorD »

aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

I find that ML (Ocaml and F#) does not get in my way (Haskell being the exception due to the absence of quick and dirty mutability) while dynamic typing (in python) does hinder me when I depend on external libraries.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#13

Post by nabla9 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

There are very few untyped languages.

* Distinction between dynamically typed and statistically typed is clear.

* Weak versus strong typing has less clear definition. Usually weakly typed means many implicit conversions between data types and representation.

Most programmers like the late binding approach. That is easy to do with dynamic typing. Adding static typing or type inference for late binding is more difficult.

Programmers usually hate the "weak" typing aspects of their dynamically typed languages when they are chosen wrong. JavaScript is good example of choosing implicit type conversions in a way that leads to confusion.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#14

Post by whatshisface »

Yoric wrote: post #11
DSingularity wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are writing a paper that requires latex it’s because it requires programming to properly set things up. Producing a typeset paper with latex is part writing and part programming.

Well, in my experience, academics often write with LaTeX because that's what they know how to use. I've had to actually code in (La)TeX for some papers or slides, but that was pretty unusual. Most of the time, I was using it out of inertia, and because I trusted it more than Microsoft Word (which used to be very bad, at the time, I imagine it has grown better).

I find LaTeX to be a lot better at typesetting than Word, even today. It is much better at deciding how much space should go between words and the equations are as refined as it gets.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#15

Post by danbolt »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #8
aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

I don't think it is fair to say that TypeScript is not in common use and TypeScript has a way more complicated type system than Java and C++, particularly since it uses structural typing rather than nominal typing.

I was thinking the same thing about TypeScript too. It's certainly catching up, and its a great way of having a gradual shift from dynamic to static types as your requirements crystallize.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#17

Post by pixelrevision »

drb91 wrote: post #5
aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

> programmers tend to prefer untyped (dyanamic?) languages to typed languages I have not found this in practice. I have found that some developers prefer a dynamically typed language for certain situations, like rapid prototyping. However when maintaining code bases, I've found that developers often bemoan the lack of static types to assist in small modifications to code they haven't touched in a while. Personally I…

For me it's typically weighted less on the type system and more the fact that I don't need to wait for a compiler or use any fancy tools to get a quick idea realized.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#18

Post by romwell »

Yoric wrote: post #11
DSingularity wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are writing a paper that requires latex it’s because it requires programming to properly set things up. Producing a typeset paper with latex is part writing and part programming.

Well, in my experience, academics often write with LaTeX because that's what they know how to use. I've had to actually code in (La)TeX for some papers or slides, but that was pretty unusual. Most of the time, I was using it out of inertia, and because I trusted it more than Microsoft Word (which used to be very bad, at the time, I imagine it has grown better).

>Well, in my experience, academics often write with LaTeX because that's what they know how to use

It's all they know how to use because it's the only thing that actually works to produce results they need with minimal pain.

And you might not need to program in LaTeX, but everyone has their custom macros.

Word really hasn't changed that much.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#19

Post by emodendroket »

aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

I feel like all the hype for dynamic languages has led to a lot of backlash in the opposite direction.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#20

Post by emodendroket »

Yoric wrote: post #11
DSingularity wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are writing a paper that requires latex it’s because it requires programming to properly set things up. Producing a typeset paper with latex is part writing and part programming.

Well, in my experience, academics often write with LaTeX because that's what they know how to use. I've had to actually code in (La)TeX for some papers or slides, but that was pretty unusual. Most of the time, I was using it out of inertia, and because I trusted it more than Microsoft Word (which used to be very bad, at the time, I imagine it has grown better).

Word has a lot of great features but is also easy to get going and use the completely wrong way -- great to get people to buy it but likely to lead to some bad experiences trying to edit documents.
Post reply on HN