3 ms·

The commonality you are referring to sounds like Chomsky's concept of Universal Grammar [1]. The object.method(args) "won" because it is a low barrier to entry

by ukj 6y ago

The commonality you are referring to sounds like Chomsky's concept of Universal Grammar [1]. The object.method(args) "won" because it is a low barrier to entry from English to Programming indeed, but as you become more and more experienced and you shake off the imperative way of thinking in favour of declarative thinking functional languages becomes more expressive than imperative languages. They become better at managing complexity because they allow you to build higher and higher towers of abstraction. And then homoiconicity [2] shines because of its 'universally grammatic' property. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity

kd5bjo 6y ago
I was thinking on a more basic level than UG; just the presence of linguistic universals [1]. I agree that functional languages are in a certain way more expressive than imperative ones, but that seems mostly orthogonal to the syntax of the language. I’m thinking about basic stuff like improper nouns, denoting a clause’s role by inflection or adposition instead of word order, and having a clearly defined spoken representation- none of this is specific to which abstract structures the language is describing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universal
yyyk 6y ago
>The object.method(args) "won" because it is a low barrier to entry from English to Programming indeed BASIC and C didn't have a concept of objects* , which didn't seem to hinder adoption at all. object.method() became popular when OOP languages became popular, and that was because IDEs offered better autocompletion with that syntax. * We could emulate objects with C in some gnarly ways. Almost no one did at the time, excluding C-with-classes/C++.

by ukj 6y ago

kd5bjo 6y ago

I was thinking on a more basic level than UG; just the presence of linguistic universals [1]. I agree that functional languages are in a certain way more expressive than imperative ones, but that seems mostly orthogonal to the syntax of the language. I’m thinking about basic stuff like improper nouns, denoting a clause’s role by inflection or adposition instead of word order, and having a clearly defined spoken representation- none of this is specific to which abstract structures the language is describing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universal

yyyk 6y ago

>The object.method(args) "won" because it is a low barrier to entry from English to Programming indeed BASIC and C didn't have a concept of objects* , which didn't seem to hinder adoption at all. object.method() became popular when OOP languages became popular, and that was because IDEs offered better autocompletion with that syntax. * We could emulate objects with C in some gnarly ways. Almost no one did at the time, excluding C-with-classes/C++.