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

31–40 of 288 posts

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

#31

Post by maxxxxx »

stcredzero wrote: post #23
pixelrevision wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you remove a lot of the cruft and redundancy and add memory management, a statically typed language with fast compiles can have some of the benefits of a dynamic language. If I could have a dynamic language, and static typing, that would be the best of both worlds. However, gradual typing doesn't seem to have caught on.

With C# you can mix dynamic and static to some degree. In some cases like parsing JSON dynamic code can be much shorter. But for maintainability the dynamic code parts should be kept localized and to a minimum/

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #27

With all due respect to Leslie Lamport his "what could be more beautiful" explanation of Euclid's algorithm is no easier for me to make sense of than these[0] various implementations. For a "complex" problem[1] you cannot write a unified field definition[2] before the fact. Otherwise the problem would have to be merely complicated (most sufficiently useful systems are complex). The easiest way humans can make sense o…

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by tincholio »

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?

I'd say that he's known as one of the fathers of distributed systems, and for winning a Turing award, more than for writing LaTeX. Also, it's not LaTeX that's Turing complete, but rather TeX. LaTeX is basically a bunch of TeX macros.

Also, the rest of your comment doesn't make any sense, either.

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

#34

Post by georgewsinger »

TLA+ vs. Functional Languages. I once tried to understand how TLA+ could be useful if your implementation language was primarily functional (i.e., Haskell). I wrote to Leslie Lamport on his mailing list and he actually responded with what I think was a very informative dialogue: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/tlaplus/George$20...

I hope TLA+ gains more popularity. It's an interesting technology.

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

#35

Post by pjmlp »

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…

Which programmers?!

With the exception of JavaScript, I only use dynamic languages for throw away scripts.

I had lots of fun with Lisp and Smalltalk, but can't imagine using them with the team sizes I usually work with.

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

#36

Post by RandomInteger4 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #28
UK-Al05 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the oldies I know prefer static typing. A lot of the new people use dynamic types because that's all they know.

Only until they have to refactor an older codebase of some size...

They who? Old or new?

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

#38

Post by eponeponepon »

batteryhorse wrote: post #26
dmreedy wrote: post #10

I believe these are the kinds of ideas that might actually create a genuine engineering culture in software development. Until we start applying this kind of rigor to our work, I don't believe the title of "Software Engineer" is justified. It doesn't have to be TLA+; it doesn't have to be any particular tool or technology or pattern or whatever. But the attitude that rigor and formal technique is worth the additional…

I disagree that engineering is the best approach to writing software. I think this is the fundamental difference between people who prefer static vs dynamic typing. People who prefer static typing are more likely to say that one solution is more "correct" than the other, whereas dynamic typing allows more flexibility. I see writing software to be similar to writing music. Music has rules and structure, but leaves roo…

You're conflating the act of building a product with the act of writing code. Even in the most expressive of languages, there are objectively good and bad ways of instructing your hardware to perform a particular calculation or set of calculations - and in the more rigid languages there is often a flat-out right and wrong way.

Design your product with as much free thought and creativity as you please, but never let yourself believe your actual code is art. That - among many other outcomes - is how your platform gets compromised and your customers' identities stolen - not to mention how the successors to your job end up cursing your name and wasting time and money replacing your code wholesale.

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

#40

Post by gav »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #27

With all due respect to Leslie Lamport his "what could be more beautiful" explanation of Euclid's algorithm is no easier for me to make sense of than these[0] various implementations. For a "complex" problem[1] you cannot write a unified field definition[2] before the fact. Otherwise the problem would have to be merely complicated (most sufficiently useful systems are complex). The easiest way humans can make sense o…

I have a feeling if more people read Alexander's books on design and patterns the quality of systems as a whole would increase. He is largely unknown in the tech circles I've been in.
Post reply on HN