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

Groups > comp.os.cpm > #1692

Re: This must be progress

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

>>>>> Zhu Feng <zhufeng@notmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2012-08-18 18:02:07 +1000, Mr Emmanuel Roche, France said:

	[Cross-posting to news:comp.lang.misc, just in case.]

[...]

 >> Conclusion: I make no conclusion.  Programming is no longer
 >> evolving.  Why?  I don't know.  Monopoly of Windows?

[...]

 > The last few years has seen an explosion of new computer languages.
 > New languages are emerging faster now that at any previous time.
 > Currently, functional programming languages and DSLs are where the
 > action is.  The current drive is to remove statefulness from software
 > to enable cross-core operation.  Windows has nought to do with it, in
 > fact what Microsoft does has very little effect any more.  The key to
 > the explosion has been open source collaboration

	... Which makes me wonder why, say, SAC [1] is non-free...

 > and the availability of key technologies like LLVM.

	While I tend to agree that LLVM is, like, a revolution in
	compiler design, the other points above seem overstated a bit.

	For instance, functional programming languages have a long and
	glorious history, but they seem to be losing to, say, Python and
	Java these days.

	As for the parallel computing, which is, to my mind, driven
	mostly by scientific data processing demands, even the state of
	the art compilers of today seem to copy much of the concepts in
	the language they implement from APL of 1964.  (Though, again,
	the /way/ they implement them /may/ be innovative.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAC_programming_language

[...]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257	http://sf-day.org/

Back to comp.os.cpm | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-16 01:02 -0700
  Re: This must be progress sampsa <sampsal@gmail.com> - 2012-08-16 01:25 -0700
  Re: This must be progress "Henk SWT" <swt@tiscali.nl> - 2012-08-16 10:44 +0200
  Re: This must be progress John Crane <johncrane@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-16 12:38 -0700
  Re: This must be progress Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-08-18 00:53 +0700
    Re: This must be progress jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2012-08-17 15:09 -0400
      Re: This must be progress The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-17 20:57 +0100
        Re: This must be progress GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2012-08-17 18:37 -0400
          Re: This must be progress The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-18 00:26 +0100
    Re: This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-18 01:40 -0700
      Re: This must be progress Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2012-08-18 13:24 +0000
      Re: This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-18 09:07 -0700
        Re: This must be progress Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2012-08-18 20:39 +0000
  Re: This must be progress Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2012-08-17 16:38 -0700
    Re: This must be progress "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedetelo@ask.me> - 2012-08-18 07:04 +0200
    Re: This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-18 01:02 -0700
      Re: This must be progress Zhu Feng <zhufeng@notmail.com> - 2012-08-20 00:28 +1000
        Re: This must be progress Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-08-20 01:19 +0700

csiph-web