two plus two equals four.
See that isn’t readable at all. I prefer syntax.
Edit: Ah u failed to actually press the button at the bottom!
If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
61–70 of 184 posts
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the OP perhaps wants to look at Apple Script?
The OP wants a modernized COBOL.
As far as I can tell, the OP wants people to stop inventing languages and "just write good code". They're deliberately describing COBOL as exciting, new and modern to make their point.
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#63For a better take on this solution space, checkout Crista Lopes’s essay on naturalistic programming: http://www.dourish.com/publications/2003/oopsla2003-naturali...
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#64This article is like a litmus year for who actually reads the full article.
Eh, it's a litmus test for who sees through the framing device of the "survey" at the end. I respect the impulse to skip the "bullshit reader engagement stunt" or however they interpreted it... But I do agree that this thread is hilarious.
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#65> Ultimately this: > FILE * test_file = fopen(“/tmp/test.txt”, “w+”); > Should become something like this: > create file /tmp/test.txt for input and output as test_file > Syntax highlighting should work instead of syntax notation just fine. I couldn't disagree more. The first example is easily scannable visually -- a variable is being created from a function call. I can tell because my eyes immediately notice the mid…
While this is a valid criticism that I agree with, I feel as if it misses the forest for the trees. The problem is entirely that the time is spent arguing over minor differences in syntax and style, while spending comparatively little time on the bigger questions of testing, security, updates, and ease-of-use of the end product. No user of software particularly cares if it's written in C or COBOL, they care whether it reboots at midnight to apply security updates, losing their work, or spends an extra three minutes a day because it has to contact a webservice.
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#66> But realistically, how often do you have to program high-performance computations? I suppose, unless you work in a narrow field of research and engineering that requires exactly that, not very often. And if you do, you have to use specialized hardware and compilers anyway. I’ll just presume, a typical 21st-century programmer don't have to solve differential equations very often. Does the author know about all the e…
Ah, but we do use specialized hardware and compilers! (nevermind that they're sold by nvidia, nobody else is buying quadros by the truckload) And moreover, you don't do the differential equation in the code, you do the partial specialization by hand and throw that into your pytorch kernel.
The fact that we are using python, instead of fortran or matlab, really does show exactly how little hard math is being done by the computer, even in these fields.
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with 'less syntax'. More syntax (when designed well) results is significantly more readable code.
How much experience do you have from C, Forth & Lisp? Spend enough time in these languages and you start seeing the world differently. Less syntax (when designed well) doesn't have to be unreadable.
How much experience do you have with 10000 lines+ codebases written in Forth or Lisp?
There is a reason people choose boring imperative languages for large projects.
I did an internship at an 'Big 4' company which (from folklore) had a moderately large server written in Haskell, the codebase was a nightmare and eventually they ended up rewriting it in C++, which I believe they still use.
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#68Really, this is worse? FILE * test_file = fopen(“/tmp/test.txt”, “w+”); than create file /tmp/test.txt for input and output as test_file Yeah, remove the ; and duplication of type: let test_file = fopen(“/tmp/test.txt”, “w+”)
Personally, I'd go with:
Var Test_file = CreateFile("/tmp/test.txt",
erase-prev-version,
open-as-read-write);
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read all the words, wasn't it fairly obvious already without clicking to vote from the last few lines?
"The language for the 21st century should be business oriented, English-like and not dependent on native types. The most exciting thing, we already have the language exactly like this! What do you think it is?" Not to me, no. I thought this what some poll to gauge popularity of he various languages or some such.
The only language that conformed is COBOL; if he put in Livecode for a twist, then it would've been slightly harder. Still the business oriented would've made me pick COBOL.
Re: If I were to invent a programming language for the 21st century
#70> Ultimately this: > FILE * test_file = fopen(“/tmp/test.txt”, “w+”); > Should become something like this: > create file /tmp/test.txt for input and output as test_file > Syntax highlighting should work instead of syntax notation just fine. I couldn't disagree more. The first example is easily scannable visually -- a variable is being created from a function call. I can tell because my eyes immediately notice the mid…
Very much agree. Programming notation, like math, is supposed to be easy to convey exact meaning, unlike human language.
Every attempt there has been to make code look like English hasn't worked out well. SQL, for example, is incredibly verbose, with complex syntax. This obscures what is otherwise very good semantics. I think this is why a lot of people hate writing queries.