Groups > comp.compilers > #2049

Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support

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" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
Date	Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:56:24 +0100
Organization	virginmedia.com
Lines	35
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<18-04-030@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<18-04-029@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="89747"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords	history, design
Posted-Date	10 Apr 2018 14:07:07 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:2049

Show key headers only | View raw

Martin,

> On 08/04/18 14:21, Derek M. Jones wrote:
>>> Modern popular languages are neither powerful nor easy to learn.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this?
>
> The C standard is over 700 pages: not exactly an easy read.

By evidence I mean an evaluation of multiple languages.

Here are some languages from 1957.  Were they powerful and easy
to learn?

http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2017/05/21/evidence-for-28-possible-compilers-in-1957/

....> memorise and avoid using if they want to write conformant and
> compatible code.

I thought we were talking about powerful and easy to learn?

> On the other hand, the Revised^4 Report on the Algorithmic Language
> Scheme ("Dedicated to the Memory of ALGOL 60") is only a 55 page manual
> but it includes the full syntax and semantics of the language.

My question was about powerful and easy to learn.  Not about number
of pages in the language specification.
[In my experience, any language that is semantically similar to
languages you already know is easy to learn.  For example, I find
python comprehensions obvious and easy to use because they're just a
syntax for a function mapping.  I know other python programmers who
find them baffling and always write "for" loops instead, presumably
because the languages they'd used didn't do much function mapping.
-John]

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-04-10 16:11 +0100
  Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2018-04-10 16:56 +0100
  Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2018-04-10 16:04 +0000
    Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2018-04-10 23:14 +0100
      Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-04-13 13:55 +0100
  Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-04-10 11:04 -0700
  Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-04-10 18:38 +0000

csiph-web