3 ms·

Counterpoint: APL and perl vs. python. Python did take usability into account and familiarity. UX is important. Developers are users. As a language (or in gener

Counterpoint: APL and perl vs. python. Python did take usability into account and familiarity. UX is important. Developers are users. As a language (or in general tool) designer you have a responsibility to make that tool easy to use, and difficult to misuse. Familiarity is a big part of that, although ease of use is bigger (which is probably why python got the traction it did despite being unfamiliar to people who came from braces-land).

diggan 8y ago
Different languages for different purposes. AFAIK, python is made for being easy to use and write, Clojure (Rich Hickey) is a pragmatic language for getting things done. Different languages will focus on different things and I think that's a good thing. If I got to choose between the Clojure I know today VS a Clojure designed for ease of use and being familiar, I'm pretty sure I would chose the first. Just like APL is much better for some tasks compared to Python, and vice versa.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  > is a pragmatic language for getting things done What does this mean though? Empirically speaking, a lot more "gets done" today using python than clojure. So, perhaps being easy to use is more pragmatic than whatever Rich means.
- kazinator 8y ago
  > Clojure designed for ease of use and being familiar I.e. Lisp, basically.
jodrellblank 8y ago
Counter to your counterpoint: APL did take usability into account. Dr Iverson got annoyed with how inconsistent and hard to read normal math notation was, and how many problems that caused in its usability, and invented Iverson notation to fix that - a tool to be usable by people writing on blackboards to show other people mathematical ideas. Years later, it was used at IBM to describe what the IBM 360 computer would do. After that, it got turned into APL\360 around 1962 (i.e there weren't all that many programming languages to be familiar with, then). The book "APL\360 An Interactive Guide" by L. Gilman, 1970, has a foreword which says: APL is clearly gaining acceptance at this time as a computer programming language. This acceptance is not hard to understand. APL is one of the most concise, consistent, and powerful programming languages ever devised. (UX is important!) and From a pedagogical standpoint APL has a number of advantages. The material can be taught and used in small pieces. A student can be trying his hand on simple operations after five minutes of instruction. What he doesn't know won't hurt him (a statement that cannot be made about most other languages). If he tries something illegal such as division by zero or adding a number and a letter, he gets an understandable error message and is free to try something else. Nothing the user can do will cause the system to crash. (Usability!) and It is indubitably true that a "clever" programmer can use these advanced operators in such a way as to produce an "opaque" program, that is, one so compact and concise as to be nearly impossible for anyone else to understand. Whatever else may be said about such programs, which are questionable in many contexts anyway, they should not be used in demonstrations of APL. Experienced programmers who have seen APL demonstrated in terms of the fantastic cleverness angle sometimes criticize the language as being hard to understand, when their criticism more properly should have been directed at the demonstrator. Such misplaced cleverness is not to be found in this book. All operators are thoroughly covered, but there is no attempt to show off the ingenuity of the authors in writing ingeniously condensed programs.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  > APL did take usability into account. Perhaps usability for a certain, very specific, subset of people (namely those who are writing code on a whiteboard?) But math notaion is not programming, they have different needs. > UX is important! Note that concise and powerful also apply to perl. Concise, in programming does not equal good UX. Often they're antithetical. (This also doesn't mean that verbose is "good UX" either. Programming language design, like programming, is about finding the right abstractions and providing them.) Compare to ABC (a language python was heavily inspired by) using `:` to declare a function (ie. `def my_f():`) despite it being unnecessary, the language was parsable without it. But they did user studies, and those found that the colon helper readers understand the blocks better. > Usability Granted this may have been an improvement in usability. APL, being a higher level language, avoids many of the problems that C and co had, and I've never used basic/fortran any of the other early languages that were popular at the same time. That said, I have to strongly disagree with the last paragraph. A good tool discourages misuse. Inscrutable programs are misuse, "Readability counts". A language that encourages, or doesn't discourage, inscrutable programs isn't as good a language as one that does (at least if you consider inscrutable programs to be misuse, and it appears that you, I, and the APL author all agree on that).
  - jodrellblank 8y ago
    Programming language design, like programming, is about finding the right abstractions and providing them. ref: "Python did take usability into account" Which APL tries to do with neat and composable functions. Sum a list of "values": APL: +/values Python: sum(values). Product of a list: APL: ×/values Python: import operator, functools, then reduce with a lambda function, or write a loop. Add constant to a list: APL: 1+values Python: [1+x for x in values] Reverse a list: APL: ⌽values Python: list(reversed(values)) but you have to care if you want an iterator or a list. Add two lists elementwise: APL: values1+values2 Python: [x+y for x,y in zip(values1, values2)] Take five from the front: APL: 5↑values Python: values[:5] In APL this syntax generalises to multidimensional arrays. In Python none of these wildly different syntaxes do, nor do the magic sum/max/min functions. In APL these are simple instructions to the user, and can be implemented fast by the runtime. In Python these are more complex patterns to learn and run slower, if you want them to work fast you have to switch again to NumPy. I am not all-in on APL, but this is so much more powerful, concise, consistent and composable than Python - the shining example of a beginner-friendly language - for basic data munging, it's like seeing Python after using Java and wondering why Java has to be so wordy and verbose to get anything done. Why does Python have to be so wordy and verbose and limited to get basic things done? Why is this large mess of inconsistent symbols and calling conventions and library functions and magic functions and sigils considered clean and usable compared to APL's very simple repeatable patterns and careful attentive use of composable symbols?

diggan 8y ago

Different languages for different purposes. AFAIK, python is made for being easy to use and write, Clojure (Rich Hickey) is a pragmatic language for getting things done. Different languages will focus on different things and I think that's a good thing. If I got to choose between the Clojure I know today VS a Clojure designed for ease of use and being familiar, I'm pretty sure I would chose the first. Just like APL is much better for some tasks compared to Python, and vice versa.

joshuamorton 8y ago
> is a pragmatic language for getting things done What does this mean though? Empirically speaking, a lot more "gets done" today using python than clojure. So, perhaps being easy to use is more pragmatic than whatever Rich means.
kazinator 8y ago
> Clojure designed for ease of use and being familiar I.e. Lisp, basically.

jodrellblank 8y ago

Counter to your counterpoint: APL did take usability into account. Dr Iverson got annoyed with how inconsistent and hard to read normal math notation was, and how many problems that caused in its usability, and invented Iverson notation to fix that - a tool to be usable by people writing on blackboards to show other people mathematical ideas. Years later, it was used at IBM to describe what the IBM 360 computer would do. After that, it got turned into APL\360 around 1962 (i.e there weren't all that many programming languages to be familiar with, then). The book "APL\360 An Interactive Guide" by L. Gilman, 1970, has a foreword which says: APL is clearly gaining acceptance at this time as a computer programming language. This acceptance is not hard to understand. APL is one of the most concise, consistent, and powerful programming languages ever devised. (UX is important!) and From a pedagogical standpoint APL has a number of advantages. The material can be taught and used in small pieces. A student can be trying his hand on simple operations after five minutes of instruction. What he doesn't know won't hurt him (a statement that cannot be made about most other languages). If he tries something illegal such as division by zero or adding a number and a letter, he gets an understandable error message and is free to try something else. Nothing the user can do will cause the system to crash. (Usability!) and It is indubitably true that a "clever" programmer can use these advanced operators in such a way as to produce an "opaque" program, that is, one so compact and concise as to be nearly impossible for anyone else to understand. Whatever else may be said about such programs, which are questionable in many contexts anyway, they should not be used in demonstrations of APL. Experienced programmers who have seen APL demonstrated in terms of the fantastic cleverness angle sometimes criticize the language as being hard to understand, when their criticism more properly should have been directed at the demonstrator. Such misplaced cleverness is not to be found in this book. All operators are thoroughly covered, but there is no attempt to show off the ingenuity of the authors in writing ingeniously condensed programs.

joshuamorton 8y ago
> APL did take usability into account. Perhaps usability for a certain, very specific, subset of people (namely those who are writing code on a whiteboard?) But math notaion is not programming, they have different needs. > UX is important! Note that concise and powerful also apply to perl. Concise, in programming does not equal good UX. Often they're antithetical. (This also doesn't mean that verbose is "good UX" either. Programming language design, like programming, is about finding the right abstractions and providing them.) Compare to ABC (a language python was heavily inspired by) using `:` to declare a function (ie. `def my_f():`) despite it being unnecessary, the language was parsable without it. But they did user studies, and those found that the colon helper readers understand the blocks better. > Usability Granted this may have been an improvement in usability. APL, being a higher level language, avoids many of the problems that C and co had, and I've never used basic/fortran any of the other early languages that were popular at the same time. That said, I have to strongly disagree with the last paragraph. A good tool discourages misuse. Inscrutable programs are misuse, "Readability counts". A language that encourages, or doesn't discourage, inscrutable programs isn't as good a language as one that does (at least if you consider inscrutable programs to be misuse, and it appears that you, I, and the APL author all agree on that).
- jodrellblank 8y ago
  Programming language design, like programming, is about finding the right abstractions and providing them. ref: "Python did take usability into account" Which APL tries to do with neat and composable functions. Sum a list of "values": APL: +/values Python: sum(values). Product of a list: APL: ×/values Python: import operator, functools, then reduce with a lambda function, or write a loop. Add constant to a list: APL: 1+values Python: [1+x for x in values] Reverse a list: APL: ⌽values Python: list(reversed(values)) but you have to care if you want an iterator or a list. Add two lists elementwise: APL: values1+values2 Python: [x+y for x,y in zip(values1, values2)] Take five from the front: APL: 5↑values Python: values[:5] In APL this syntax generalises to multidimensional arrays. In Python none of these wildly different syntaxes do, nor do the magic sum/max/min functions. In APL these are simple instructions to the user, and can be implemented fast by the runtime. In Python these are more complex patterns to learn and run slower, if you want them to work fast you have to switch again to NumPy. I am not all-in on APL, but this is so much more powerful, concise, consistent and composable than Python - the shining example of a beginner-friendly language - for basic data munging, it's like seeing Python after using Java and wondering why Java has to be so wordy and verbose to get anything done. Why does Python have to be so wordy and verbose and limited to get basic things done? Why is this large mess of inconsistent symbols and calling conventions and library functions and magic functions and sigils considered clean and usable compared to APL's very simple repeatable patterns and careful attentive use of composable symbols?