These are fun to say out loud in the voice of the Kai Lentit's Perl programmer
Perlisisms (1982)
21–30 of 64 posts
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#22> A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant. Great definition actually
Disagree - like many of the quotes on this page, it seems interesting at a very superficial level but upon further inspection turns out to be nonsensical. If something requires attention, it’s by definition relevant
If you want to go out of your way to interpret things as uncharitably as possible, you'll find yourself missing out on a lot of potential wisdom.
Obviously, it's relevant if the language itself forces the user to worry about some pointless minutia. The problem is that the language created that relevance, when it is otherwise irrelevant to the problem the user is trying to solve.
Forward declarations are relevant in C because the program won't compile without them. But they aren't relevant in any meaningful way to any domain a user might be writing C programs for.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#23> A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant. Great definition actually
Relevance is relative, very much so.
That makes that quote even better, no? What is relevant to you might not be relevant to me, the right level for you might too far low level for me.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#24I read this as "Perlism" at first and got excited to see perl on HN.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#25> A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing.
This one stood out to me. I'd say it's a favorite.
These others are interesting in the age of LLMs:
> 93. When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.
> 114. Within a computer natural language is unnatural.
> 115. Most people find the concept of programming obvious, but the doing impossible.
> 27. Once you understand how to write a program get someone else to write it.
> 113. The only constructive theory connecting neuroscience and psychology will arise from the study of software.
This one remains worth thinking about in terms of the consequences and costs of automation and computerization, LLM-powered or not:
> 99. In man-machine symbiosis, it is man who must adjust: The machines can't.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#26> A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant. Great definition actually
Disagree - like many of the quotes on this page, it seems interesting at a very superficial level but upon further inspection turns out to be nonsensical. If something requires attention, it’s by definition relevant
These were published in the Communications of the ACM in the 1980s, I discovered them in the early 2000s, and have been reading them annually since. Every year, one of the ones that didn't make sense to me the previous year suddenly does.
In this particular quote, Perlis is talking about relevancy to the problem. He's hinting at the difference between incidental complexity and inherent complexity. Inherent complexity is a property of the problem, and incidental complexity is a property of the solution. He's arguing against solutions that bring incidental complexity that requires attention to aspects that aren't relevant to the problem.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#27My favorite has always been:
> 31. Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.
Kind of close to "build the first one to throw away".
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#28> A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing. This one stood out to me. I'd say it's a favorite. These others are interesting in the age of LLMs: > 93. When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop. > 114. Within a computer natural language is unnatural. > 115. Most people find the concept of programming o…
Also: 102. One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#29>1. One man's constant is another man's variable. Did you ever have one of those days when variables didn't and constants weren't?
It constantly varies.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#30In the long run every program becomes rococo - then rubble.