Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29839 > unrolled thread

OT: Remarks on languages by language creators...

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 00:46 +0100
    Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 01:00 +0100
      Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 18:07 -0700
        Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 10:34 +0100
      Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 03:47 -0400
        Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-26 15:21 +0200
    Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-26 04:15 -0400
      Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-26 09:49 +0100
      Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 19:35 -0600
    Re: OT: Remarks on languages by language creators... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-26 04:53 -0500

#29839 — OT: Remarks on languages by language creators...

Given the recent discussions on language successes & failures, thought
the following might bring some light enjoyment:

Here's Larry Wall, live, expressing his views on  of Java:

"Java is sort of the Cobol of the 21st century... It's kind of
heavyweight, verbose, and everyone loves to hate it, though not
everyone will admit that.  

But managers like it because it looks like you're getting a lot done. 
If 100 lines of Java code accomplish a task, then it looks like you've
written 100 lines, even though in a different language, it might only
take 5 lines.  

It's like, you can eat a 1-pound steak or you can eat, 100 pounds of
shoe leather.  [Though] you feel a greater sense of accomplishment
after the shoe leather, maybe they're some downsides."

 :)

Success or failure?  100 pounds of shoe leather later, we could still
be arguing the toss ;)

(Here's the link to the transcript --- there's also a video if you
want to hear him --- the chuckler is just a minute or so in.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LR8fQiskYII

- Assad

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29840

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:46:00 +0100, Assad Ebrahim
<assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:

>Given the recent discussions on language successes & failures, thought
>the following might bring some light enjoyment:
>
>Here's Larry Wall, live, expressing his views on  of Java:
>
>"Java is sort of the Cobol of the 21st century... It's kind of
>heavyweight, verbose, and everyone loves to hate it, though not
>everyone will admit that.  
>
>But managers like it because it looks like you're getting a lot done. 
>If 100 lines of Java code accomplish a task, then it looks like you've
>written 100 lines, even though in a different language, it might only
>take 5 lines.  
>
>It's like, you can eat a 1-pound steak or you can eat, 100 pounds of
>shoe leather.  [Though] you feel a greater sense of accomplishment
>after the shoe leather, maybe they're some downsides."
>


And here's Bjarne Stroustrup speaking about C --- why he thinks it
should have been merged with C++ (and why C is obsolete)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KlPC3O1DVcg

- Assad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29842

Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> writes:
> And here's Bjarne Stroustrup speaking about C --- why he thinks it
> should have been merged with C++ (and why C is obsolete)...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KlPC3O1DVcg

That one is kind of interesting.  Though there is also:

http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29850

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:07:04 -0700, Paul Rubin
<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> writes:
>> And here's Bjarne Stroustrup speaking about C --- why he thinks it
>> should have been merged with C++ (and why C is obsolete)...
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KlPC3O1DVcg
>
>That one is kind of interesting.  Though there is also:
>
>http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

That's nice.  I agree.  

 Nicely summed up in his three paragraph summary here:
http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/why.html

which starts  "There is no reason to use C++ for new projects." and
finishes with "If you are an expert in the intricacies of C++, please
consider this knowledge a kind of martial art - something a real
master never uses."

--------------

IMO the techincal world breaks up into two types of people --- those
who really like and value simplicity and are willing to work harder to
achieve it, and those who really like layers of abstraction and are
willing to tolerate complexity.

In the former I consider Chuck, Knuth, Dijkstra, and some of the best
mathematicians and computer scientists.

In the latter I consider Stroustrup, Wall, and unfortunately many
mathematicians and computer scientists today.

And I think there's a root cause, expressed beautifully here:

Computer scientists are "reaching the stage of development where each
new generation of participants is unaware both of their overall
technological ancestry and the history of the development of their
speciality, and have no past to build upon”  - J.A.N. Lee, 1996 [1,
p.54]  

[1]  Lee, J.A.N. (1996) Those Who Forget the Lessons of History Are
Doomed To Repeat It” or, Why I Study the History of Computing. IEEE
Annals of the History of Computing, 18:2, 54-62. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29845

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:00:42 -0400, Assad Ebrahim  
<assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:

> And here's Bjarne Stroustrup speaking about C --- why he thinks
> it should have been merged with C++ (and why C is obsolete)...
>

Does anyone take him seriously after creating C++? ...

It was his incompetence with C and resulting misplaced hatred
of C that caused him to create the nightmare we know as C++.
He's still trying to patch up the serious defects in his language
to this day.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29863

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 03:47:46 -0400
"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:00:42 -0400, Assad Ebrahim  
> <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
> 
> > And here's Bjarne Stroustrup speaking about C --- why he thinks
> > it should have been merged with C++ (and why C is obsolete)...
> >
> 
> Does anyone take him seriously after creating C++? ...
> 
> It was his incompetence with C and resulting misplaced hatred
> of C that caused him to create the nightmare we know as C++.

Hahahhahahahhahah ;)

> He's still trying to patch up the serious defects in his language
> to this day.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton



-- 
Click OK to continue...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29846

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:46:00 -0400, Assad Ebrahim  
<assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:

> Here's Larry Wall, live, expressing his views on  of Java:
>
> [...]
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LR8fQiskYII
>

The first interesting quote is:
(after 4:41)

"So, almost all the other languages that you see ... Java, Perl,
whatever, uh actually, uh, if you looked down underneath they're
implemented in C, ... or, a closely related language."

What did I say here a while back that had a bunch of you here
arguing that I was wrong? (Exactly that.)


The other interesting quote is in regards to Perl, but is one
that those who work on standardizing Forth should take to heart:
(after 5:22)

"And, because, uh, we, uh, have intentionally been, uh, redesigning
it lately to leapfrog, uh, all the other languages, uh, for, for ...
the last number of years, we've been, uh, redesigning it to take out
all the warts we've noticed over time.  We figured it was just our one
chance to, um, break backwards compatibility, break the things that
need breaking.  Keep all the things that make Perl, Perl."


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29847

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 04:15:52 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

>
>The other interesting quote is in regards to Perl, but is one
>that those who work on standardizing Forth should take to heart:
>(after 5:22)
>
>"And, because, uh, we, uh, have intentionally been, uh, redesigning
>it lately to leapfrog, uh, all the other languages, uh, for, for ...
>the last number of years, we've been, uh, redesigning it to take out
>all the warts we've noticed over time.  We figured it was just our one
>chance to, um, break backwards compatibility, break the things that
>need breaking.  Keep all the things that make Perl, Perl."
>

This remark, I think, is Larry Wall putting the best possible face on
a bit of an embarrassing situation.

Perl 6 has been "in design" for over 14 years (since 2000), has
wandered round and about and it's still not there.

Really, that's longer than it took Odysseus to find his way back from
Troy...   and in programming language timescales, 14 years suggests to
me that they're lost in the woods.

And the bold statement about breaking backwards compatibility was a
big deal.  Announcing such massive breakage at the outset, then taking
an interminable amount of time to get anything nailed down, then
having numerous mid-stream changes that broke earlier proposed changes
--- alll this has IMO, already caused Perl significant damage and has
made leaving Perl for Python or other communities more attractive for
many.   After all if a moving target called Perl 6 is going to be
*that* different from Perl 5 and require that much effort to learn &
migrate to, then why not just learn a new language altogether, one
that can already do most of the things that Perl6 promises.  This kind
of cost-benefit assessment leaves Perl as the loser.

So, I don't think the Perl6 experience is a good one for Forth to
emulate.  Rather, it's an example IMO of what one should not do.

- Assad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29893

On 26-Apr-14 02:15, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> "So, almost all the other languages that you see ... Java, Perl,
> whatever, uh actually, uh, if you looked down underneath they're
> implemented in C, ... or, a closely related language."
>
> What did I say here a while back that had a bunch of you here
> arguing that I was wrong? (Exactly that.)

Because self-hosting is such an uncommon technique.
[/sarcasm]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29853

Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
> Given the recent discussions on language successes & failures, thought
> the following might bring some light enjoyment:
> 
> Here's Larry Wall, live, expressing his views on  of Java:
> 
> "Java is sort of the Cobol of the 21st century... It's kind of
> heavyweight, verbose, and everyone loves to hate it, though not
> everyone will admit that.  
> 
> But managers like it because it looks like you're getting a lot done. 
> If 100 lines of Java code accomplish a task, then it looks like you've
> written 100 lines, even though in a different language, it might only
> take 5 lines.  
> 
> It's like, you can eat a 1-pound steak or you can eat, 100 pounds of
> shoe leather.  [Though] you feel a greater sense of accomplishment
> after the shoe leather, maybe they're some downsides."

From the man who created Perl!  Sheesh, talk about people in glass
houses.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web