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

Why Do Programming Languages Succeed? (2014)

flagxor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Why Do Programming Languages Succeed? (2014)

#11

Post by mywittyname »

pizlonator wrote: post #4

I'm surprised that Scheme is not mentioned. If you consider it to be just a dialect of Lisp then Lisp+Scheme is probably as popular as some of the languages listed as succeeding for popularity. By my count, the combined Lisp+Scheme language has a 1.42% rating on TIOBE, which makes it more popular than Ada, ActionScript, C*, Lua, R, and others. Also, most of the favorable statements about embedding Lua or Tcl apply to…

Agreed, if you're going to list Basic and Pascal because they are easy to implement, then Scheme seems like a no-brainer for inclusion. It probably is the most common language for Baby's First Interpreter.

Re: Why Do Programming Languages Succeed? (2014)

#12

Post by mamcx »

riscy wrote: post #2

> Some paradigms exemplified by the special languages are arguably unrealized or aspirational. [...] Haskell's pattern matching and monads end up being used mostly as a vehicle to embed imperative programs. Pattern matching has nothing to do with imperative programs and Haskell is not original for having it; it's been around since the 70s in ML. I would also argue that pattern matching has been realized in many popul…

You read it wrong. Him said that in Haskell PM & monads are using for make imperative code, NOT that is the defined trait of haskell, instead: "are arguably unrealized or aspirational"

Re: Why Do Programming Languages Succeed? (2014)

#13

Post by riscy »

mamcx wrote: post #12
riscy wrote: post #2

> Some paradigms exemplified by the special languages are arguably unrealized or aspirational. [...] Haskell's pattern matching and monads end up being used mostly as a vehicle to embed imperative programs. Pattern matching has nothing to do with imperative programs and Haskell is not original for having it; it's been around since the 70s in ML. I would also argue that pattern matching has been realized in many popul…

You read it wrong. Him said that in Haskell PM & monads are using for make imperative code, NOT that is the defined trait of haskell, instead: "are arguably unrealized or aspirational"

The rest of the article lists Haskell as being original for introducing pattern matching and monads as a new programming paradigm.

Re: Why Do Programming Languages Succeed? (2014)

#14

Post by mamcx »

riscy wrote: post #13
mamcx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You read it wrong. Him said that in Haskell PM & monads are using for make imperative code, NOT that is the defined trait of haskell, instead: "are arguably unrealized or aspirational"

The rest of the article lists Haskell as being original for introducing pattern matching and monads as a new programming paradigm.

Oh right. In the "Very special" section list that (Without that it could be a more compelling argument).

Perhaps haskell make it more popular?

Post reply on HN