4 ms·

Moreover, if I did use a high-level language, what language should it be? In the 1960s I would probably have chosen Algol W; in the 1970s, I would then have had

by b0rsuk 9y ago

Moreover, if I did use a high-level language, what language should it be? In the 1960s I would probably have chosen Algol W; in the 1970s, I would then have had to rewrite my books using Pascal; in the 1980s, I would surely have changed everything to C; in the 1990s, I would have had to switch to C++ and then probably to Java. In the 2000s, yet another language will no doubt be de rigueur. I cannot afford the time to rewrite my books as languages go in and out of fashion; languages aren't the point of my books, the point is rather what you can do in your favorite language. -- from the article

wyager 9y ago
Ok, cool, so use a pseudocode syntax easily understood by anyone familiar with basic control flow constructs. Most algorithms books do this, and even if they're ugly, they're certainly better than a made up assembly language.
- defanor 9y ago
  That pseudocode is "English as the high-level language", as I understand it. Basic and common notation is used there, it's not plain English. Edit: though it's indeed not used extensively to denote control flow: that is done with "go to".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  Most schools around the world teach you maths, even though vast majority of people doesn't use maths at work - not directly. So why bother ? Surely primary school math would be enough for everyone except specialists ? While I'm skeptical of value of maths for programming, I can't deny that the process of learning and practicing maths teaches you valuable skills: discipline, thinking outside the box, logic, looking at things from different points of view, concentration, persistence, attention to detail... Now Assembly programming requires many of the same skills, AND it's close to metal. It's how computers actually work. At the end of the day, all programming languages are written in asm or can be written in asm. You can't escape physics and relationships between parts of processor. It doesn't matter if a programming language is imperative or functional, or OO, the rules are the same for all. There are high level language constructs which can represent complex things in simple ways, but if you don't know how processors and algorithms work, you're playing a lottery, not optimizing a program. Having low level knowledge pays off even if using a high level language. It's good to know what's physically possible. ---------- Side note, inspired by this post... how do I post a "ASK HN" post ? I'm not 100% sure if I do this right, the last time I left the "URL" field empty but my submission looked like a normal submission, no "ASK HN" in title etc.
  - kwhitefoot 9y ago
    > While I'm skeptical of value of XXXX for YYYY, I can't deny that the process of learning and practicing XXXX teaches you valuable skills: discipline, thinking outside the box, logic, looking at things from different points of view, concentration, persistence, attention to detail... This has been used as a justification for teaching all sorts of things down the ages (Latin, geometry, martial arts, soldiering, etc.). Why not teach the "valuable skills" instead?
- throwawayhf 9y ago
  The expressiveness of "basic control flow constructs" was only formally established 1966; four years after Knuth started TAoCP and two years before the first volume would be complete; also two years before the starting salvos of the fight over whether structured programming was a good engineering decision (as opposed to merely a choice of mathematical formalism) or not. Moreover, the whole point of the series is to discuss foundational matters. Today, for a variety of reasons, we tend to assume structured programming as an unalloyed good. But given both the physical and mathematical structure of computing it's not an obvious theorem; it has even less obvious consequences for pedagogy and engineering; and if we are to address foundational matters, we need to understand both sides of the transformation.

by b0rsuk 9y ago

wyager 9y ago

Ok, cool, so use a pseudocode syntax easily understood by anyone familiar with basic control flow constructs. Most algorithms books do this, and even if they're ugly, they're certainly better than a made up assembly language.

defanor 9y ago
That pseudocode is "English as the high-level language", as I understand it. Basic and common notation is used there, it's not plain English. Edit: though it's indeed not used extensively to denote control flow: that is done with "go to".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
b0rsuk 9y ago
Most schools around the world teach you maths, even though vast majority of people doesn't use maths at work - not directly. So why bother ? Surely primary school math would be enough for everyone except specialists ? While I'm skeptical of value of maths for programming, I can't deny that the process of learning and practicing maths teaches you valuable skills: discipline, thinking outside the box, logic, looking at things from different points of view, concentration, persistence, attention to detail... Now Assembly programming requires many of the same skills, AND it's close to metal. It's how computers actually work. At the end of the day, all programming languages are written in asm or can be written in asm. You can't escape physics and relationships between parts of processor. It doesn't matter if a programming language is imperative or functional, or OO, the rules are the same for all. There are high level language constructs which can represent complex things in simple ways, but if you don't know how processors and algorithms work, you're playing a lottery, not optimizing a program. Having low level knowledge pays off even if using a high level language. It's good to know what's physically possible. ---------- Side note, inspired by this post... how do I post a "ASK HN" post ? I'm not 100% sure if I do this right, the last time I left the "URL" field empty but my submission looked like a normal submission, no "ASK HN" in title etc.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  > While I'm skeptical of value of XXXX for YYYY, I can't deny that the process of learning and practicing XXXX teaches you valuable skills: discipline, thinking outside the box, logic, looking at things from different points of view, concentration, persistence, attention to detail... This has been used as a justification for teaching all sorts of things down the ages (Latin, geometry, martial arts, soldiering, etc.). Why not teach the "valuable skills" instead?
throwawayhf 9y ago
The expressiveness of "basic control flow constructs" was only formally established 1966; four years after Knuth started TAoCP and two years before the first volume would be complete; also two years before the starting salvos of the fight over whether structured programming was a good engineering decision (as opposed to merely a choice of mathematical formalism) or not. Moreover, the whole point of the series is to discuss foundational matters. Today, for a variety of reasons, we tend to assume structured programming as an unalloyed good. But given both the physical and mathematical structure of computing it's not an obvious theorem; it has even less obvious consequences for pedagogy and engineering; and if we are to address foundational matters, we need to understand both sides of the transformation.