3 ms·

J technically meets the description I listed above (APL that can be written on a QWERTY keyboard) but as another commenter here it looks like line noise rather

by yodon 9y ago

J technically meets the description I listed above (APL that can be written on a QWERTY keyboard) but as another commenter here it looks like line noise rather than a modern programming language. I get that people like it, I was hoping for something that was more approachable to conventional “curly brace languages” developers. If J is the best today then I think I’m still waiting for the language I’m hoping for.

JdeBP 9y ago
People have complained over the years that the "curly brace languages" themselves look like line noise, rather than the "modern programming languages" that have words for things like BEGIN and END. They've also complained about their "wacky keyboard" requirements. Not everyone uses a U.S. keyboard layout, and the "curly brace languages" use characters that are harder to type in other layouts. I strongly suspect that the number of people who have modified their keyboards, fiddled with their keyboard layouts, or bought "programming keyboards" of one sort or another for working in the "curly brace languages" is an order of magnitude greater than the number of people who ever wanted an APL keyboard. Yet this is not seen as a problem with these languages, or a reason to abandon them. With the benefit of these additional decades of experience with languages, programmers, and keyboards the 1980s notion that the keyboard was the problem should be perhaps finally laid to rest; given the evidence of the intervening decades that programmers can and do adapt their keyboards to their languages.
- yodon 9y ago
  BEGIN and END? Curly braces being an issue comparable those faced by a language like APL? We clearly have very different opinions on what drives or impedes language adoption
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    Have a look around. You'll find several decades' worth of people complaining about the "curly brace languages" in the very same way that you just talked about APL and "wacky keyboard requirements". You'll find far more programmers adapting their keyboards to their languages, for those sorts of languages, from people employing "programmer" keyboard layouts to people buying whole add-on or replacement keyboards (sometimes from other continents), than you'll find people complaining about keyboards and APL. The idea that APL wasn't adopted because programmers were stuck with keyboards that did not match it is 1980s received wisdom, recirculated in part because people look back at history such as this very item at hand. We have, however, over three decades' worth of experience of a world where programmers very much do change keyboards to suit their needs. The evidence of subsequent and even contemporary history shows that the received wisdom is wrong. A case in point that is even contemporary to Dijkstra's letter: In the 1980s, the ZX80 and ZX81 came out, famously with keyboards that could directly enter tokenized BASIC, token by token. Yet the fact that one could not do this with (say) a PC/XT keyboard (or even a QL keyboard, for that matter) was not seen as a problem with BASIC, or a reason to abandon it.

by yodon 9y ago

JdeBP 9y ago

People have complained over the years that the "curly brace languages" themselves look like line noise, rather than the "modern programming languages" that have words for things like BEGIN and END. They've also complained about their "wacky keyboard" requirements. Not everyone uses a U.S. keyboard layout, and the "curly brace languages" use characters that are harder to type in other layouts. I strongly suspect that the number of people who have modified their keyboards, fiddled with their keyboard layouts, or bought "programming keyboards" of one sort or another for working in the "curly brace languages" is an order of magnitude greater than the number of people who ever wanted an APL keyboard. Yet this is not seen as a problem with these languages, or a reason to abandon them. With the benefit of these additional decades of experience with languages, programmers, and keyboards the 1980s notion that the keyboard was the problem should be perhaps finally laid to rest; given the evidence of the intervening decades that programmers can and do adapt their keyboards to their languages.

yodon 9y ago
BEGIN and END? Curly braces being an issue comparable those faced by a language like APL? We clearly have very different opinions on what drives or impedes language adoption
- JdeBP 9y ago
  Have a look around. You'll find several decades' worth of people complaining about the "curly brace languages" in the very same way that you just talked about APL and "wacky keyboard requirements". You'll find far more programmers adapting their keyboards to their languages, for those sorts of languages, from people employing "programmer" keyboard layouts to people buying whole add-on or replacement keyboards (sometimes from other continents), than you'll find people complaining about keyboards and APL. The idea that APL wasn't adopted because programmers were stuck with keyboards that did not match it is 1980s received wisdom, recirculated in part because people look back at history such as this very item at hand. We have, however, over three decades' worth of experience of a world where programmers very much do change keyboards to suit their needs. The evidence of subsequent and even contemporary history shows that the received wisdom is wrong. A case in point that is even contemporary to Dijkstra's letter: In the 1980s, the ZX80 and ZX81 came out, famously with keyboards that could directly enter tokenized BASIC, token by token. Yet the fact that one could not do this with (say) a PC/XT keyboard (or even a QL keyboard, for that matter) was not seen as a problem with BASIC, or a reason to abandon it.