3 ms·

Wasn't McCarthy working on a model that's more elegant than Turing machines? As far as axioms go, you can't get simpler than the Turing machine: it doesn't eve

by hasenj 16y ago

Wasn't McCarthy working on a model that's more elegant than Turing machines? As far as axioms go, you can't get simpler than the Turing machine: it doesn't even have a notion of a variable, let alone types or strings. I don't know about the history of Lisp other from what I've read from you, but it seems what McCarthy was working on was a more elegant model, rather than an "axiomatically pure" model. Arc on the other hand, is trying to compete with Ruby and Python.

nostrademons 16y ago
Lambda calculus is actually simpler than Turing machines. There are only two primitives: function definition and application. You can use that to express any computable function, including booleans, conditionals, integers, arithmetic, strings, etc.
pg 16y ago
I believe his goal was a formal model of computation that was also good for expressing algorithms. Plus eval probably seemed like a neat trick. We take it for granted, but imagine how pleasing that must have been to think of. I'm not trying to compete with Ruby and Python. If I were I'd be recruiting armies of people to write libraries.
- hasenj 16y ago
  I meant "compete" in terms of expressiveness. And actually that's not the only thing. A language that can express algorithms in few lines that are very cryptic (read: hard to read) is not very useful. I think were python hit the mark spot on is the adoption of the idea that "programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute". And where ruby hit it spot on is "optimizing for happiness", I particularly like Matz's his idea about "harmony"[1]. Matz> I believe consistency and orthogonality are tools of design, not the primary goal in design. If the language forces you to carry the compiler in your brain as you try to read code, it's a bad idea. One of the things that annoy me about lisp as a beginner, and maybe this only because I'm a beginner, is that I always have to manually compile code into the syntax tree. [1]: http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby2.html http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby2.html
  - evanrmurphy 16y ago
    A language that can express algorithms in few lines that are very cryptic (read: hard to read) is not very useful. Part of Arc's design philosophy is to never inconvenience advanced users in order to serve novice ones. Long, descriptive names help people unfamiliar with a language's operators better understand what they do, but the length can become a burden once they do know. For example, when I first started learning Arc, it would have saved me some headache if afn had been named anaphoric-function. Now I would find that a real nuisance. I love being able to invoke such a powerful abstraction with just three keystrokes. Here's an interesting exercise. This is the given solution to the Arc Challenge [1]: (defop said req (aform [w/link (pr "you said: " (arg _ "foo")) (pr "click here")] (input "foo") (submit))) What would you prefer that it looked like? If you replaced all the abbreviated names with long descriptive ones, you'd have something like: (define-operator said request (html-anaphoric-form [html-with-link (print "you said: " (argument _ "foo")) (print "click here")] (html-input "foo") (html-submit))) --- [1] http://arclanguage.org/item?id=722 http://arclanguage.org/item?id=722
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - hasenj 16y ago
      I despite long names in JavaLibrariesAndFrameWorks but I don't appreciate tla aop (three letter acronyms all over the place). Your second code snippet is actually much more pleasant to read.
      - evanrmurphy 16y ago
        Sure, it's subjective. :) I forgot to mention though that the idea is to use the shortest names possible for the core language operators. That's when they're the biggest win, since you'll learn those well enough not to need descriptive names, and they cut program length more substantially since they're used so often.
        16y ago

by hasenj 16y ago

nostrademons 16y ago

Lambda calculus is actually simpler than Turing machines. There are only two primitives: function definition and application. You can use that to express any computable function, including booleans, conditionals, integers, arithmetic, strings, etc.

pg 16y ago

I believe his goal was a formal model of computation that was also good for expressing algorithms. Plus eval probably seemed like a neat trick. We take it for granted, but imagine how pleasing that must have been to think of. I'm not trying to compete with Ruby and Python. If I were I'd be recruiting armies of people to write libraries.

hasenj 16y ago
I meant "compete" in terms of expressiveness. And actually that's not the only thing. A language that can express algorithms in few lines that are very cryptic (read: hard to read) is not very useful. I think were python hit the mark spot on is the adoption of the idea that "programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute". And where ruby hit it spot on is "optimizing for happiness", I particularly like Matz's his idea about "harmony"[1]. Matz> I believe consistency and orthogonality are tools of design, not the primary goal in design. If the language forces you to carry the compiler in your brain as you try to read code, it's a bad idea. One of the things that annoy me about lisp as a beginner, and maybe this only because I'm a beginner, is that I always have to manually compile code into the syntax tree. [1]: http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby2.html http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby2.html
- evanrmurphy 16y ago
  A language that can express algorithms in few lines that are very cryptic (read: hard to read) is not very useful. Part of Arc's design philosophy is to never inconvenience advanced users in order to serve novice ones. Long, descriptive names help people unfamiliar with a language's operators better understand what they do, but the length can become a burden once they do know. For example, when I first started learning Arc, it would have saved me some headache if afn had been named anaphoric-function. Now I would find that a real nuisance. I love being able to invoke such a powerful abstraction with just three keystrokes. Here's an interesting exercise. This is the given solution to the Arc Challenge [1]: (defop said req (aform [w/link (pr "you said: " (arg _ "foo")) (pr "click here")] (input "foo") (submit))) What would you prefer that it looked like? If you replaced all the abbreviated names with long descriptive ones, you'd have something like: (define-operator said request (html-anaphoric-form [html-with-link (print "you said: " (argument _ "foo")) (print "click here")] (html-input "foo") (html-submit))) --- [1] http://arclanguage.org/item?id=722 http://arclanguage.org/item?id=722
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - hasenj 16y ago
    I despite long names in JavaLibrariesAndFrameWorks but I don't appreciate tla aop (three letter acronyms all over the place). Your second code snippet is actually much more pleasant to read.
    - evanrmurphy 16y ago
      Sure, it's subjective. :) I forgot to mention though that the idea is to use the shortest names possible for the core language operators. That's when they're the biggest win, since you'll learn those well enough not to need descriptive names, and they cut program length more substantially since they're used so often.
      - 16y ago