6 ms·

2008 diagram, missing a decade

by coldcode 9y ago

olavk 9y ago
What new major paradigms do you think it is missing?
- smitherfield 9y ago
  Type systems, which the chart doesn’t address at all, are now usually considered at least as important an aspect to language’s ‘paradigm’ as the (increasingly-blurry) functional vs imperative distinction. And a lot of the examples are pretty dated, coming as it did at the tail end of the object-oriented and XML fads. And concurrency and especially parallelism are given short shrift.
  - nextos 9y ago
    Paradigms are quite orthogonal to type systems. Mozart/Oz and AliceML implement more or less the same set of paradigms. One is dynamic the other is statically typed.
    - smitherfield 9y ago
      Then they don’t implement the same set of paradigms. Type systems (can) fundamentally shape how computations may be expressed in a language. For example, C++’s type system was famously proved Turing-complete.
      - naasking 9y ago
        So is Java's type system [1], and Rust's and Haskell's with some modest extensions, and Scala's. Many type systems have turned out to be Turing complete. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05274 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05274
      - DonbunEf7 9y ago
        No, that just changes where programmers can put their computations. Scheme and Rust are not more powerful for their macros than C++ is for its templates; both can put unreasonable demands on the compilers.
  - olavk 9y ago
    He states typing is orthogonal to the chart. But obviously there are many ways to slice the cake.
  - zokier 9y ago
    Typing is hardly a new thing, its lack definitely can't be blamed on the age of the chart. It has this comment though > Axes that are orthogonal to this chart are typing, aspects, and domain-specificity. Typing is not completely orthogonal: it has some effect on expressiveness
    - smitherfield 9y ago
      I wasn't saying it's a new thing, I was saying it's considered relatively more important now than it was in '08.
      - naasking 9y ago
        I don't think so. Perhaps you've changed your mind on that topic, but typed languages were always dominant in industry, modulo a few startups. That's still the case today.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        I don't get what you mean here. I think statically typed languages are much less dominant now than in 2008. Python, Ruby, JavaScript have all found huge niches since then.
        naasking 9y ago
        > Python, Ruby, JavaScript have all found huge niches since then. And Perl has a much smaller niche, and JavaScript's niche is hard to pin down since it's often just a compilation target for typed languages (Dart, TypeScript, etc.). Language marketshare ebbs and flows, but I don't think the overall ratio has changed much. Statically typed languages are still largely dominant. I can't think of any domain that was dominated by a statically typed language that a dynamically typed language took over, and every new domain that cropped up with dynamically typed solutions has equally good statically typed competitors.
        9y ago

2008 diagram, missing a decade

olavk 9y ago

What new major paradigms do you think it is missing?

smitherfield 9y ago
Type systems, which the chart doesn’t address at all, are now usually considered at least as important an aspect to language’s ‘paradigm’ as the (increasingly-blurry) functional vs imperative distinction. And a lot of the examples are pretty dated, coming as it did at the tail end of the object-oriented and XML fads. And concurrency and especially parallelism are given short shrift.
- nextos 9y ago
  Paradigms are quite orthogonal to type systems. Mozart/Oz and AliceML implement more or less the same set of paradigms. One is dynamic the other is statically typed.
  - smitherfield 9y ago
    Then they don’t implement the same set of paradigms. Type systems (can) fundamentally shape how computations may be expressed in a language. For example, C++’s type system was famously proved Turing-complete.
    - naasking 9y ago
      So is Java's type system [1], and Rust's and Haskell's with some modest extensions, and Scala's. Many type systems have turned out to be Turing complete. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05274 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05274
    - DonbunEf7 9y ago
      No, that just changes where programmers can put their computations. Scheme and Rust are not more powerful for their macros than C++ is for its templates; both can put unreasonable demands on the compilers.
- olavk 9y ago
  He states typing is orthogonal to the chart. But obviously there are many ways to slice the cake.
- zokier 9y ago
  Typing is hardly a new thing, its lack definitely can't be blamed on the age of the chart. It has this comment though > Axes that are orthogonal to this chart are typing, aspects, and domain-specificity. Typing is not completely orthogonal: it has some effect on expressiveness
  - smitherfield 9y ago
    I wasn't saying it's a new thing, I was saying it's considered relatively more important now than it was in '08.
    - naasking 9y ago
      I don't think so. Perhaps you've changed your mind on that topic, but typed languages were always dominant in industry, modulo a few startups. That's still the case today.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        I don't get what you mean here. I think statically typed languages are much less dominant now than in 2008. Python, Ruby, JavaScript have all found huge niches since then.
        naasking 9y ago
        > Python, Ruby, JavaScript have all found huge niches since then. And Perl has a much smaller niche, and JavaScript's niche is hard to pin down since it's often just a compilation target for typed languages (Dart, TypeScript, etc.). Language marketshare ebbs and flows, but I don't think the overall ratio has changed much. Statically typed languages are still largely dominant. I can't think of any domain that was dominated by a statically typed language that a dynamically typed language took over, and every new domain that cropped up with dynamically typed solutions has equally good statically typed competitors.
        9y ago