Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#2There's a reasonable argument that APL and derivatives are more expressive than lisp and its derivatives, at the expensive of having a much larger startup cost in terms of things you have to know.
I suspect that in another few years the old-school APL alphabet will be positioned to start making a comeback, via in-software, touch-screen 'keyboards' (thereby eliminating the expense of a very small run of 'funny symbol' keyboards).
Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#3Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#4Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#5It got me to thinking about the virtues of simplicity instead of the increasing complexity that we are getting into.
Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#6I read an article on APL back in the early 80s and it sounded wonderful, but I never had an occasion to learn or use it. The closest thing for me now are list operations in Python and the collection functions I'm learning in Clojure right now.
Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#7I really enjoyed reading that. As russell said, it is far outside my experience, but it is more like I wished my experience would have been. I read an article on APL back in the early 80s and it sounded wonderful, but I never had an occasion to learn or use it. The closest thing for me now are list operations in Python and the collection functions I'm learning in Clojure right now.
Re: Conversation with Arthur Whitney, programming language designer
#8It's a must read because it's so far outside our normal experience. First the languages are derivatives of APL that do one thing very well and nothing else. Don't try doing a web page in APL. Second, the programs efficiently process billion and trillion line databases in a tightly constrained environment. Third, Whitley throws away everything every few years and reimplements from scratch, even the parts that work. He…
I don't think that's fair. They are general-purpose languages. It's true that they've mostly been used on certain classes of problems so far, but that could just be a historical accident. Who's to say what people would make with them if they found a broader audience?
Whitney is not someone who thinks in special cases.
Edit: I agree with everything else you said, though.