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

I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

lua-users.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#11

Post by bad_user »

j_baker wrote: post #9

Let me say this... there's a reason why ALGOL 68 is no longer used very much. At the time it was criticized for being horrendously complex, and there is some truth to this. Notice that the email points out all the different things you can do with ALGOL 68 compared to Go. If we were to compare all programming languages this way, wouldn't C++ be the best language ever?

No, C++ lacks many things ... that's why I personally hate it ... the cost you pay for the feature creep is not worth it.

A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything.

There's nothing I hate more about a programming language than exceptions to rules. And Go has plenty of those. I understand the pragmatism, but if some people are unhappy with C++ or Java, why make the same mistakes when designing a new one?

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#12

Post by j_baker »

bad_user wrote: post #11
j_baker wrote: post #9

Let me say this... there's a reason why ALGOL 68 is no longer used very much. At the time it was criticized for being horrendously complex, and there is some truth to this. Notice that the email points out all the different things you can do with ALGOL 68 compared to Go. If we were to compare all programming languages this way, wouldn't C++ be the best language ever?

No, C++ lacks many things ... that's why I personally hate it ... the cost you pay for the feature creep is not worth it. A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything. There's nothing I hate more about a programming language than exceptions to rules. And…

"A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything."

I think it's just a sign that computer science is a maturing field. After all, I don't hear civil engineers complaining that the fundamental concepts of building a bridge haven't changed much in the last ~2000 years.

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#13

Post by bad_user »

j_baker wrote: post #12
bad_user wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, C++ lacks many things ... that's why I personally hate it ... the cost you pay for the feature creep is not worth it. A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything. There's nothing I hate more about a programming language than exceptions to rules. And…

"A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything." I think it's just a sign that computer science is a maturing field. After all, I don't hear civil engineers complaining that the fundamental concepts of building a bridge haven't changed much in the last ~20…

From my POV, it's a sign that we are becoming more shallow.

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#14

Post by kraemate »

j_baker wrote: post #12
bad_user wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, C++ lacks many things ... that's why I personally hate it ... the cost you pay for the feature creep is not worth it. A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything. There's nothing I hate more about a programming language than exceptions to rules. And…

"A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything." I think it's just a sign that computer science is a maturing field. After all, I don't hear civil engineers complaining that the fundamental concepts of building a bridge haven't changed much in the last ~20…

Yeah, i dont hear people blaming civil engineers because all the bridges that they build collapse spontaneously or which need to be replaced every 6 months or which work only with 5 wheel cars. 'Computer Science' is going backwards fast, and we all know it.

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#15

Post by ramchip »

kraemate wrote: post #14
j_baker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A good language is not a revolutionary one, indeed, but it's kind of depressing that the state of the art is the same as 30-40 years ago, and it sometimes seems that language-designers haven't learned anything." I think it's just a sign that computer science is a maturing field. After all, I don't hear civil engineers complaining that the fundamental concepts of building a bridge haven't changed much in the last ~20…

Yeah, i dont hear people blaming civil engineers because all the bridges that they build collapse spontaneously or which need to be replaced every 6 months or which work only with 5 wheel cars. 'Computer Science' is going backwards fast, and we all know it.

Backwards? Come on. Write a Parsec-based parser, build a GUI with Qt, make a web app with Rails or Clojure or whatever you like - then compare your experience to what it would have been 10 or 20 years ago.

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#18

Post by pbh »

While the web seems to be alight with comparisons of Go to other languages (Python, Lisp, ...), what seems to make this post unique is the comparison of Go to a forty year old language in little common use today.

To me at least, this begs a question---where do the great trolls of the Internet go to brag about their exploits? I remember in the golden age of Slashdot one could read "TrollTalk" and see links to the best posts with the most comments trying to misguidedly correct the original troll, most mod points up or down, and so on. (I think it even had a scoring system and a best-of newsletter of sorts.) Where do the great trolls of today hang out and brag about their exploits?

I don't mean just the sort of mediocre trolls who might compare Go to Visual Basic or something, but the sort of highly specialised trolls who might start a fire storm by comparing it to Algol-68. Where does one look to find the Orson Welles of modern technology trolls? Has blogging killed the once fine art of trolling?

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#19

Post by joe_the_user »

whye wrote: post #17
xtho wrote: post #16

Maybe it's just me but I personally find it funny, this was posted to the lua-users mailing list.

What's funny about it?

Perhaps because lua is obscure and aims to be innovative? I.E, pretty similar to Go.

Re: I think (Algol) is richer, clearer and more expressive (than Go)

#20

Post by gruseom »

j_baker wrote: post #8
chipdude wrote: post #4

I had no idea how much of today's code carries ALGOL DNA.

ALGOL invented most of the things you see in today's code. Loops, subroutines, and I believe dynamic allocation all came from ALGOL. And the reality is that these things haven't really changed much. Most of the changes that modern languages bring are in the way of directives to the compiler/interpreter.

Loops, subroutines, and I believe dynamic allocation all came from ALGOL.

The initial release of Fortran had loops and subroutines. But I don't think even they invented those things.

I'm not sure about dynamic allocation.

Post reply on HN