Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.misc > #328
| From | Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.misc |
| Subject | Re: Time for a new language? |
| Date | 2011-06-17 08:38 +0000 |
| Organization | Stack Usenet News Service |
| Message-ID | <slrnivm4kg.253.marcov@turtle.stack.nl> (permalink) |
| References | <slrnivjjeb.1t1c.marcov@turtle.stack.nl> <a6dee2c294deb076cd80a86c28a4ea4d@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
On 2011-06-17, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >> Higher level is not more abstraction from the machine, but closer to the >> problem domain. > > That would be a good definition in theory but it reality it is not that > way. There used to be more domain specific languages than there are now. True. But does that change a definition? > Now > the higher and higher level languages are just scripting languages that are > general purpose languages. What is your argumentation for that? People want to believe scripting languages like Perl and Python are higher level because they are relatively new (or at least became popular relatively recent) and shiny. But I'm not doing marketing for those language, I prefer an objective definition. >> While the first steps away from assembler are the same in both >> definitions, one could discuss if Java really is closer to the problem >> domain than e.g. C++. They are both similar OOP general purpose >> languages. > > You may have a good point and I think it has to do with the libraries more > than the languages. IMHO that is a different subject, but that is certainly happening. > People have really made a mistake by separating libraries and languages > because it's a false separation Depends on your viewpoint what you are interested in. Getting work done? And where do you lay the line ? Portable functionality? Whatever the vendor provides? These are tradeoffs that are different for everybody (or even everybodies distinct projects) But since this is comp.lang.misc not comp.libraries.misc, I think it is entirely justified ot limit it to the language. (though I'm actually a language runtime maintainer, and that is where my interests lie, the lowlevel library and how it interacts with the language) > Neither Java nor C++ would be worth anything without their > respective libraries. (well, that depends if you deem them worth anything with them in the first place :-) Kidding aside, it is certainly true. But to be honest, I think a main player pushing a solution is more important than design. All post 2000 languages (and the major scripting languages are actually mostly older than that) are pushed by big corporations. .NET wouldn't have been as popular if it came from Borland, despite that Borland's former architect designed it. The libraries bit makes it more than just market power. Huge libraries need huge investments, both in the making and maintaining. And .NET is huge. Really huge. >> Scripting languages originally were closer to the problem domain, since >> they were engineered to script various binaries together in a "script", >> and thus more highlevel. > > Hmmm not sure what you meant here, but my bullshit detector moved to the red > zone ;-) To get to a current definition/placement of scripting languages I go back to what they originally were meant to do. Execute programs in a certain order. Later some variables and flexibility of execution order (control statements) were added. I found it a bit paradoxal and amusing that such definition would put the batch like scripting languages of old on a higher level (since engineered €for a specific problem domain, and thus higher level. >> An OS specific scripting language is thus still more highlevel than a >> general purpose portable language. > > Yes but can you name any? Almost all scripting languages today are cross > platform. Huh? The most used ones not. Admitted batchfiles work on windows AND dos, but is that portable? VBScript? And one could easily argue that many of the so called portable languages really never left Unix. Or can stock Python finally deal with an UNC path nowadays and change the current directory to it? >> Well, unless you define portability as your main problem domain, obviously >> ;-) > > No, that is a very big mistake in logic. Portability is not a problem > domain, it's a feature (or not). I tend to agree with you, but in rare cases it can be the fundament of a business model. (integration of systems in heterogenous environments) But on the other side you can turn everything into a businessmodel. If you have an unreadable scripting language you can make a fortune selling books that explain it. Tim O'Reilly did with Perl :-)
Back to comp.lang.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Time for a new language? Jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 18:58 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-06 21:45 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:10 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-08 14:09 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-08 12:56 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-09 02:31 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-09 09:10 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-06-09 16:37 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 10:39 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-10 04:46 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-10 12:15 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 11:03 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-06 16:47 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-07 01:17 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 03:07 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-07 04:21 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-07 11:26 +0100
Re: Time for a new language? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-07 07:45 -0400
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:02 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-07 12:49 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? gremnebulin <peterdjones@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-13 16:36 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:25 +1200
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-16 23:11 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-17 01:39 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "H.J. Sander Bruggink" <sander.bruggink@uni-due.de> - 2011-06-17 11:05 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-17 02:54 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:55 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-17 00:55 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-08 23:54 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-08 17:37 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-06-14 10:23 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-06-14 16:45 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-14 15:11 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-15 01:41 -0400
Re: Time for a new language? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-15 15:40 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-06-16 09:32 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-17 03:25 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 08:38 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-17 07:42 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 12:59 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-17 08:48 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 14:07 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-06-19 15:57 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-20 13:21 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-17 22:10 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-17 07:47 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? Marco van de Voort <marcov@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 13:02 +0000
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-17 07:53 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 13:37 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-17 19:25 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-22 09:41 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-06-22 11:06 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-22 19:30 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-22 10:21 +0100
Re: Time for a new language? "Tony" <nospam@myisp.net> - 2011-06-17 07:37 -0500
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 11:18 -0700
csiph-web