7 ms·

Greenspun's Tenth Law [0] is a humorous aphorism that applies here. >> Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specifi

Greenspun's Tenth Law [0] is a humorous aphorism that applies here. >> Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. [0] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GreenspunsTenthRuleOfProgramming http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GreenspunsTenthRuleOfProgramming

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
What would be some recent examples of this. (In the spirit of generosity I will accept a substitution of c++ for c and a reasonably-fortranish language for fortran).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Scala the language ;). Or every time someone reinvents "programming in XML" (and yes, so-called "behavioral trees" in game development, at least in their basic form, also count).
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    How is scala a large c-ish or fortran-ish project?
    - kyllo 11y ago
      Greenspun's Tenth Rule is a joke (there aren't even any other rules numbered 1-9). It's not meant to be taken literally. The point is that low-level languages like C and Fortran (and today, Java) are underpowered, and any sufficiently large project will evolve to the point where someone builds a (often vaguely Lisp-like) scripting language on top of it to allow developers to raise the level of abstraction, maybe without even realizing that's what they're doing. I have seen this in action, a lot of companies build internal, proprietary scripting languages on top of their low-level programs. They may start out as configuration files, a build system, preprocessor macros, or a DSL, but over time as features get added they accidentally become Turing-complete, and eventually someone writes an interpreter and now you've invented something that serves the same purpose as Lisp, only worse. More here: https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/the-emacs-problem https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/the-emacs-problem
      - lispm 11y ago
        > will evolve to the point where someone builds a (often vaguely Lisp-like) scripting language No, that's not what it is about. It's not about programs needing a scripting language. It's about the program (its framework, libraries, architecture, ...) itself. It will acquire features like: * late binding * symbols * dynamic data structures * serialization format * a plugin architecture with loading of code * advanced error handling * first class function objects * automatic memory management * specialized numeric datatypes (large integers, ...) * a dynamic object system * more... The implementation language will be extended by some framework, software layers, libraries with such features ... so that over time it will implement many of the standard features of Common Lisp Note that platforms like the JVM, .net and others nowadays provide many of that (and much more). Also language on top of those do: Java/Scala/... See for example how for Java dynamic loading of code has been implemented on top of custom class loaders.
- zeveb 11y ago
  glib offers much of what Common Lisp offers as part of the language (and more, of course).
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    I'm not horribly familiar with glib, could you expand?
    - zeveb 11y ago
      glib[1] is a library for C which provides things like portable file I/O (in Common Lisp); error reporting (in CL); hook functions (part of CL); a reader (in CL); a lists, sequences, strings & hash tables (in CL) and so forth. Common Lisp mostly has a fuller implementation of all of these. It also has some things CL doesn't provide as part of the language: threading primitives; URL-handling; advanced calendrical calculations; basic crypto and so forth. [1] https://developer.gnome.org/glib/ https://developer.gnome.org/glib/
      - klibertp 11y ago
        Hm, I don't think you can say that an optional, third party library is a "part of a language". Each language has a some standard library, which can be considered "part of a language", but other libraries shouldn't be. This way you could say that all npm, pypi and gem packages are part of the relevant languages. Other than this, however, it's a good example.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
The yolo PHP framework deliberately invokes this rule: http://yolophp.computer/ http://yolophp.computer/

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

What would be some recent examples of this. (In the spirit of generosity I will accept a substitution of c++ for c and a reasonably-fortranish language for fortran).

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Scala the language ;). Or every time someone reinvents "programming in XML" (and yes, so-called "behavioral trees" in game development, at least in their basic form, also count).
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  How is scala a large c-ish or fortran-ish project?
  - kyllo 11y ago
    Greenspun's Tenth Rule is a joke (there aren't even any other rules numbered 1-9). It's not meant to be taken literally. The point is that low-level languages like C and Fortran (and today, Java) are underpowered, and any sufficiently large project will evolve to the point where someone builds a (often vaguely Lisp-like) scripting language on top of it to allow developers to raise the level of abstraction, maybe without even realizing that's what they're doing. I have seen this in action, a lot of companies build internal, proprietary scripting languages on top of their low-level programs. They may start out as configuration files, a build system, preprocessor macros, or a DSL, but over time as features get added they accidentally become Turing-complete, and eventually someone writes an interpreter and now you've invented something that serves the same purpose as Lisp, only worse. More here: https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/the-emacs-problem https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/the-emacs-problem
    - lispm 11y ago
      > will evolve to the point where someone builds a (often vaguely Lisp-like) scripting language No, that's not what it is about. It's not about programs needing a scripting language. It's about the program (its framework, libraries, architecture, ...) itself. It will acquire features like: * late binding * symbols * dynamic data structures * serialization format * a plugin architecture with loading of code * advanced error handling * first class function objects * automatic memory management * specialized numeric datatypes (large integers, ...) * a dynamic object system * more... The implementation language will be extended by some framework, software layers, libraries with such features ... so that over time it will implement many of the standard features of Common Lisp Note that platforms like the JVM, .net and others nowadays provide many of that (and much more). Also language on top of those do: Java/Scala/... See for example how for Java dynamic loading of code has been implemented on top of custom class loaders.
zeveb 11y ago
glib offers much of what Common Lisp offers as part of the language (and more, of course).
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I'm not horribly familiar with glib, could you expand?
  - zeveb 11y ago
    glib[1] is a library for C which provides things like portable file I/O (in Common Lisp); error reporting (in CL); hook functions (part of CL); a reader (in CL); a lists, sequences, strings & hash tables (in CL) and so forth. Common Lisp mostly has a fuller implementation of all of these. It also has some things CL doesn't provide as part of the language: threading primitives; URL-handling; advanced calendrical calculations; basic crypto and so forth. [1] https://developer.gnome.org/glib/ https://developer.gnome.org/glib/
    - klibertp 11y ago
      Hm, I don't think you can say that an optional, third party library is a "part of a language". Each language has a some standard library, which can be considered "part of a language", but other libraries shouldn't be. This way you could say that all npm, pypi and gem packages are part of the relevant languages. Other than this, however, it's a good example.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

The yolo PHP framework deliberately invokes this rule: http://yolophp.computer/ http://yolophp.computer/