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

If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 288 posts

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#81

Post by [deleted] »

drb91 wrote: post #5
aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

> programmers tend to prefer untyped (dyanamic?) languages to typed languages I have not found this in practice. I have found that some developers prefer a dynamically typed language for certain situations, like rapid prototyping. However when maintaining code bases, I've found that developers often bemoan the lack of static types to assist in small modifications to code they haven't touched in a while. Personally I…

[deleted]

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#82

Post by Kenji »

aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

The type system in C++ (with templates) is actually incredibly powerful.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#83

Post by Nursie »

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #76
Nursie wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the attitude that rigor and formal technique is worth the additional effort Commercially speaking - it's usually not.

Does this speak more to the pursuit of the application of software to problems generally or to the baseline triviality of problems that are funded to have software applied to them? To me it seems like an incentive problem that starts with the distorting effects of unsophisticated investors w/ unrealisitic expectations who fund following a herd mentality only things they can themselves pattern-match to.

To me it speaks of Software being "good enough" far more easily than it can be perfect.

> To me it seems like an incentive problem

Why is it a problem if a buyer gets something that works well enough for a lot less time/money put in?

Further to that - specifications and requirements are often imperfect, poorly pinned down, ever-changing. Software creation out in the commercial world has shifted working patterns to try to adapt to that (Agile methods amongst others). Attempting formal proof of such soft, malleable systems would appear to be a fool's errand.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#84

Post by travisoneill1 »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #6
aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

Most of the oldies I know prefer static typing. A lot of the new people use dynamic types because that's all they know.

True. I started coding a couple years ago and used a static typed language for the first time a couple months ago. Definitely don't want to go back.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#85

Post by hhmc »

simias wrote: post #21
aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

>yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages The more strongly typed a language is the more it forces you to think about the big picture and architecture your entire application in a way that will map nicely to the type system. For instance with a language like Rust which is both strongly typed and integrates concepts like lifetimes into the type system you need to think long and hard early on…

> The more strongly typed a language is the more it forces you to think about the big picture

This is a good point. A straightforward corollary is that the size of the picture can be drastically different for beginners and experts.

One would imagine that beginners work on more small toy projects than experts. In such cases the protections that static languages offer can seem less valuable, and the friction more painful.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#86

Post by Floegipoky »

aasasd wrote: post #42
aidenn0 wrote: post #3

I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…

Personally, while I strictly use dynamically-typed languages and wouldn't want to do all that typecast typing in Java, I still use type hints for the IDE—in PHP, Python and JS. Because hints give valuable information and enable IDE features that can be directly used by me in my work, as opposed to typecasts which make me toil for the compiler. So for me, the divide is that the tools shouldn't make me do work that the…

Java already had limited generic type inference, and 10 just introduced local variable type inference: https://developer.oracle.com/java/jdk-10-local-variable-type...

That being said the only thing I've run on jre10 so far has been Scala, so ymmv.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#87

Post by jononor »

settler4 wrote: post #58
jononor wrote: post #56

I think we need reusable (formal) specifications for it to become adapted widely. If that could be done in a way similar to how we today use open source libraries of reusable code, findable via a package manager, it might fly. Writing formal specs from scratch each and every time is too time consuming relative to the gain, except for in a few critical usecases.

And then find a way to run that and so turn it into a programming language?

No we already have enough of those. But one could implement a way of annotating that some code/package (in ordinary programming language) implements a certain specification. This metadata should be searchable through the package manager.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#88

Post by btilly »

stcredzero wrote: post #23
pixelrevision wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's typically weighted less on the type system and more the fact that I don't need to wait for a compiler or use any fancy tools to get a quick idea realized.

If you remove a lot of the cruft and redundancy and add memory management, a statically typed language with fast compiles can have some of the benefits of a dynamic language. If I could have a dynamic language, and static typing, that would be the best of both worlds. However, gradual typing doesn't seem to have caught on.

Gradual typing has a strong tendency to turn into never-typing because when you've got it running there is no real point to going back and adding types. Which divides people back into those who want dynamic typing and those who want static typing.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#89

Post by emodendroket »

batteryhorse wrote: post #26
dmreedy wrote: post #10

I believe these are the kinds of ideas that might actually create a genuine engineering culture in software development. Until we start applying this kind of rigor to our work, I don't believe the title of "Software Engineer" is justified. It doesn't have to be TLA+; it doesn't have to be any particular tool or technology or pattern or whatever. But the attitude that rigor and formal technique is worth the additional…

I disagree that engineering is the best approach to writing software. I think this is the fundamental difference between people who prefer static vs dynamic typing. People who prefer static typing are more likely to say that one solution is more "correct" than the other, whereas dynamic typing allows more flexibility. I see writing software to be similar to writing music. Music has rules and structure, but leaves roo…

But it's clear that one approach can be more correct than another. If it was supposed to save a document and instead it deletes all my documents, it's not right.

Re: If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming Language [video]

#90

Post by emodendroket »

jononor wrote: post #87
settler4 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then find a way to run that and so turn it into a programming language?

No we already have enough of those. But one could implement a way of annotating that some code/package (in ordinary programming language) implements a certain specification. This metadata should be searchable through the package manager.

What, like WCF?
Post reply on HN