> A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant. Great definition actually
Relevance is relative, very much so.
Yes, that's the point.
Perlisisms (1982)
41–50 of 64 posts
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
My CS teacher in the algorithms frequently said, “until you have the question, the answer doesn’t help.”
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who do understand how software works should absolutely be having agents code it. I don’t think there’s such people. Either you’re writing a software for the first time and so the premise is not true. Or you’re writing it a second time and what would be the point? Just reuse the code you already have.
There are lots of people who understand how software works, including the fact that every line of code is new or else you wouldn't need to write it. Personally, I love "philosophy of software" questions like these, especially in the AI era. I write quite a bit about this on Medium: https://medium.com/@mimixco
Maybe we need a definition of “understanding how software works”. There’s the technical aspect (computation theory, computer organization, compilation, executable format, …) and there’s the necessity aspect (the domain).
The technical aspect can be learned although you can stop at the top of the abstraction tower (the programming language and its ecosystem). The domain aspect encompasses the whole world pretty much. Contributing to Blender does not qualify you to review a Krita patch. You have to learn the latter’s code first.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#44> 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…
> 99. In man-machine symbiosis, it is man who must adjust: The machines can't.
It seems worth noting here that the English verb "to adjust" is ambitransitive.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#45> 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
OK, how is manual memory management relevant to writing a program to get weather information from an Internet API and display it to the user? In that context, "relevant" is the domains of getting the data (network communications) and displaying it (console vs GUI, converting units to the user's preferences, determining how much to show) and how the program internally manages its buffers is a distraction from those important concepts. Every line of code I have to write to ensure I have the space to store the data I need to work with is visual and cognitive noise, which is why programmers developed garbage collection.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#46> 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…
> 99. In man-machine symbiosis, it is man who must adjust: The machines can't. It seems worth noting here that the English verb "to adjust" is ambitransitive.
Why?
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#47I read this as "Perlism" at first and got excited to see perl on HN.
One can dream...
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 99. In man-machine symbiosis, it is man who must adjust: The machines can't. It seems worth noting here that the English verb "to adjust" is ambitransitive.
Why?
It either means man must adjust (themselves), or must adjust (the machine).
So it's a somewhat arch joke than may not be apparent due to shifts in language usage. (Also, "man" in this context was short for "human" without regard to sex (which we now call gender)).
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 99. In man-machine symbiosis, it is man who must adjust: The machines can't. It seems worth noting here that the English verb "to adjust" is ambitransitive.
Why?
The parent alludes to the fact that the sentence could conceivably be read as "In man-machine symbiosis, it is man who must adjust [the machine]", i.e. reading "adjust" as transitive rather than as intransitive.
However, I think it's clear that the intended meaning is intransitive.
Re: Perlisisms (1982)
#50> 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…
> 36. The use of a program to prove the 4 color theorem will not change mathematics -- it merely demonstrates the theorem, a challenge for a century, is probably not important to mathematicians.