3 ms·

innovation into "more powerful/better language mechanisms" has stalled, for some other reasons. For sequential languages there is probably not much to

innovation into "more powerful/better language mechanisms" has stalled, for some other reasons. For sequential languages there is probably not much to improve -- except at the edges. ML nailed it. Almost all core PL research today is about - verification - concurrency/parallelism because both are beset with deep unsolved problems: for verification the problem is how to do it efficiently (we know we can do it in principle), and for concurrency/parallelism we have not yet discovered core abstractions including the right types that can express simple properties of concurrency/parallelism (at least that is my working hypothesis). This is intimately related to our current inability to auto-parallelise.

mpweiher 9y ago
> For sequential languages there is probably not much to improve -- except at the edges. ML nailed it. And that's the problem right there. There is sooo much that is out of whack with programming, even sequential. For starters look up 'architectural mismatch'.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  That was solved with formal specifications in languages such as Z, CSP, ASM's, B, and recently TLA+. Even if you don't do proof, high-assurance projects would specify context of sequential components in such languages to find mismatches at interfaces, protocol errors, and so on. It got pretty easy to do, too. The tooling is really good for that now esp on TLA+ end. So, there's not so much a problem in programming languages with architecture so much as programmers ignoring proven ways of catching such problems. Usually what I just mentioned plus review and testing. People like hwayne are laying groundwork for reductions in this problem by making accessible tutorials showing practical value of such techniques. https://learntla.com/introduction/ https://learntla.com/introduction/
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>ML nailed it. Then why does Haskell exist? And if Haskell nailed it, why does the Backpack module system exist? Clearly, nobody has "nailed it".
- mafribe 9y ago
  Haskell is an ML variant, that basically extends ML with higher-kinded types, which are used -- among other things -- to constrain effects monadically.

mpweiher 9y ago

> For sequential languages there is probably not much to improve -- except at the edges. ML nailed it. And that's the problem right there. There is sooo much that is out of whack with programming, even sequential. For starters look up 'architectural mismatch'.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
That was solved with formal specifications in languages such as Z, CSP, ASM's, B, and recently TLA+. Even if you don't do proof, high-assurance projects would specify context of sequential components in such languages to find mismatches at interfaces, protocol errors, and so on. It got pretty easy to do, too. The tooling is really good for that now esp on TLA+ end. So, there's not so much a problem in programming languages with architecture so much as programmers ignoring proven ways of catching such problems. Usually what I just mentioned plus review and testing. People like hwayne are laying groundwork for reductions in this problem by making accessible tutorials showing practical value of such techniques. https://learntla.com/introduction/ https://learntla.com/introduction/

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>ML nailed it. Then why does Haskell exist? And if Haskell nailed it, why does the Backpack module system exist? Clearly, nobody has "nailed it".

mafribe 9y ago
Haskell is an ML variant, that basically extends ML with higher-kinded types, which are used -- among other things -- to constrain effects monadically.