4 ms·

Sometimes, when I read that a language was inspired by another language, I wonder why you can't see the simplicity of the first in the second.

by JepZ 9y ago

taneq 9y ago
Second-system effect?
nickpsecurity 9y ago
People said that about Wirth's languages, too. Yet, metaprogramming, highly-optimizing compilers, REPL's, generics, concurrency models that were safe, Design-by-Contract, and so on all had their benefits that complicated implementation. In my opinion, some features like those were worth complicating implementations of languages since they simplified developers' work on every other project in that language. So, I'm always up for looking at new languages in case their experiments can teach us to do something better. Maybe it will simplify, complicate, or just refactor something in process. I don't care long as end result is better in a measurable way. So, I'm as cautious about attempts to over-simplify things as I am to over-complicate them. Well, ok, I worry about over-complicating things more if it's programming we're talking about. I do try not to forget the other in the rare cases I think it might show up. ;)
gokr 9y ago
Looking at my inspirations I would (take it with a grain of salt) say that Lisp and Forth are too simple, javascript is a mess (but with nice literal syntax for maps etc), Smalltalk is too complicated and Rebol is basically also a bit complicated and IMHO a bit of an oddball with some neat ideas. And Nim is a totally different beast.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  I thought Smalltalk was relatively simple. What makes you think it's too complicated?
  - gokr 9y ago
    I have worked extensively with Smalltalk, I know it quite well and it's my favorite language. I made SqueakMap and several other packages for Squeak. Still, it's not as simple as it can/could be, especially not the meta model. Alan Kay himself has the same feelings AFAIK.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      Do you have anything specific in mind about how you'd simplify it while keeping the overall experience? That's what I meant by the question. Far as Kay, he's been building things on LISP's and Ometa-like languages in STEPS that I was aware. Given that, Im not sure how much he really believes im Smalltalk these days. Maybe he's implemented new Smalltalks that I just missed.

Sometimes, when I read that a language was inspired by another language, I wonder why you can't see the simplicity of the first in the second.

by JepZ 9y ago

Sometimes, when I read that a language was inspired by another language, I wonder why you can't see the simplicity of the first in the second.

taneq 9y ago

Second-system effect?

nickpsecurity 9y ago

People said that about Wirth's languages, too. Yet, metaprogramming, highly-optimizing compilers, REPL's, generics, concurrency models that were safe, Design-by-Contract, and so on all had their benefits that complicated implementation. In my opinion, some features like those were worth complicating implementations of languages since they simplified developers' work on every other project in that language. So, I'm always up for looking at new languages in case their experiments can teach us to do something better. Maybe it will simplify, complicate, or just refactor something in process. I don't care long as end result is better in a measurable way. So, I'm as cautious about attempts to over-simplify things as I am to over-complicate them. Well, ok, I worry about over-complicating things more if it's programming we're talking about. I do try not to forget the other in the rare cases I think it might show up. ;)

gokr 9y ago

Looking at my inspirations I would (take it with a grain of salt) say that Lisp and Forth are too simple, javascript is a mess (but with nice literal syntax for maps etc), Smalltalk is too complicated and Rebol is basically also a bit complicated and IMHO a bit of an oddball with some neat ideas. And Nim is a totally different beast.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
I thought Smalltalk was relatively simple. What makes you think it's too complicated?
- gokr 9y ago
  I have worked extensively with Smalltalk, I know it quite well and it's my favorite language. I made SqueakMap and several other packages for Squeak. Still, it's not as simple as it can/could be, especially not the meta model. Alan Kay himself has the same feelings AFAIK.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    Do you have anything specific in mind about how you'd simplify it while keeping the overall experience? That's what I meant by the question. Far as Kay, he's been building things on LISP's and Ometa-like languages in STEPS that I was aware. Given that, Im not sure how much he really believes im Smalltalk these days. Maybe he's implemented new Smalltalks that I just missed.