Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "Derek M. Jones" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:21:48 +0100 Organization: virginmedia.com Lines: 38 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <18-04-003@comp.compilers> References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> <18-03-103@comp.compilers> <18-03-042@comp.compilers> <18-03-047@comp.compilers> <18-03-075@comp.compilers> <18-03-079@comp.compilers> <18-03-101@comp.compilers> <18-04-002@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="17531"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: design, history Posted-Date: 08 Apr 2018 12:37:51 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2033 All, > John asked us to speculate what might have happened differently, > not produce empirically verifiable theories :-) http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2016/05/23/the-fall-of-rome-and-the-ascendancy-of-ego-and-bluster/ > You also mentioned combining static type checking with explicit A language can contain strong typing, but these are useless unless people actually use them: http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2014/04/17/c-vs-ada-which-language-is-more-strongly-typed/ Some weak evidence that stronger typing saves some time. My view is that the benefit happens over longer timescales (too long for it to be cost effective to run an experiment): http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2014/08/27/evidence-for-the-benefits-of-strong-typing-where-is-it/ > Re "empirical software engineering", If anybody has any public data that I don't have, please let me know: http://www.knosof.co.uk/ESEUR > It is like introducing alchemy into the chemistry department: I would say it's more akin to saying that chemistry papers need to maximize the number of mathematical orgasm they contain and lets ignore reality. > let's forget all the theory and all the maths and just smush > random chemicals together and see what happens! > Yes, it's something new, and no, it's not a direction I favour. http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2017/11/29/vanity-project-or-real-research/ > Modern popular languages are neither powerful nor easy to learn. What evidence do you have for this?