3 ms·

What is the problem with using one language to produce another? How do you think your primary programmin language gets converted to assembly and then to machine

by kashif 17y ago

What is the problem with using one language to produce another? How do you think your primary programmin language gets converted to assembly and then to machine code? As far as I am concerned this is a useful abstraction on a trivial problem.

mbreese 17y ago
The problem is that this is a trivial problem. Why add an abstraction on top of something that is already so simple?
- timtadh 17y ago
  Well machine language is pretty simple especially when you use something like MIPS. It can even be pretty fun to code in if you assembler has good macro support. However there is value is adding an abstraction layer on top of machine code. I think what people are really trying to say in these comments is that this new mini language does not provide useful value vs HTML like C provides vs. MIPS. Cheers.
- showell 17y ago
  My problem with HTML is not its lack of simplicity; it is its verbosity. SHPAML solves the (fairly) trivial problem of making HTML less verbose. The abstraction pays off for me insofar as I expect to use SHPAML for the next decade or so, and it's easy to remember the syntax, easy to share the output, etc.
  - mbreese 17y ago
    Yeah, but how many other people will be using it? You may be planning on using it for a decade, but you will be in a very small minority. And so to share the output (the very common and portable HTML), you need to add another step to your workflow to convert things. This just seems like too much effort for very little gain.
    - showell 17y ago
      If 0.001% of the world's population uses it, I think that comes out to something like 60,000 people. You can see here that I've already solved the problem of sharing SHPAML output using HTML: http://shpaml.webfactional.com/ http://shpaml.webfactional.com/ You are right about it adding a step to my workflow. If only there was some kind of machine that could automate things for me...

by kashif 17y ago

mbreese 17y ago

The problem is that this is a trivial problem. Why add an abstraction on top of something that is already so simple?

timtadh 17y ago
Well machine language is pretty simple especially when you use something like MIPS. It can even be pretty fun to code in if you assembler has good macro support. However there is value is adding an abstraction layer on top of machine code. I think what people are really trying to say in these comments is that this new mini language does not provide useful value vs HTML like C provides vs. MIPS. Cheers.
showell 17y ago
My problem with HTML is not its lack of simplicity; it is its verbosity. SHPAML solves the (fairly) trivial problem of making HTML less verbose. The abstraction pays off for me insofar as I expect to use SHPAML for the next decade or so, and it's easy to remember the syntax, easy to share the output, etc.
- mbreese 17y ago
  Yeah, but how many other people will be using it? You may be planning on using it for a decade, but you will be in a very small minority. And so to share the output (the very common and portable HTML), you need to add another step to your workflow to convert things. This just seems like too much effort for very little gain.
  - showell 17y ago
    If 0.001% of the world's population uses it, I think that comes out to something like 60,000 people. You can see here that I've already solved the problem of sharing SHPAML output using HTML: http://shpaml.webfactional.com/ http://shpaml.webfactional.com/ You are right about it adding a step to my workflow. If only there was some kind of machine that could automate things for me...