3 ms·
> In fact, the shortage is in computer-science research. and > There is plenty of innovation in the programming language space. Are at odds with each other.
by 0x12 15y ago
> In fact, the shortage is in computer-science research.
and
> There is plenty of innovation in the programming language space.
Are at odds with each other. All of the programming languages that we use today can trace their roots back to computer-science research, either in the dark ages or in the immediate past.
Things like software transactional memory and other goodies are the pay-offs from that research and those things are only now making their way into programming languages.
You can't have the one without the other. And that goes both ways, computer-science research needs to have people that try the concepts it comes up with in the marketplace to see what survives in an adversarial context, so that it will be able to make the next step based on what survived and what didn't. So that's two birds with one stone, it's a proving ground and the foundation for the next generation of concepts.
- pointyhat 15y agoComputer science != programming language. Computer science is at a far lower level of abstraction than meta-languages and compilers.
- scott_s 15y agoMost people I know consider programming languages and compilers a part of computer science. This set of people is mostly computer science researchers, some of whom (including myself) who do work in the area.
- pointyhat 15y agoThat's at a very high level. It's part of, but it's not the driving force behind what is possible. That is the constraints of the universe and consequentially mathematics, on which there is little focus these days. Programming languages and compilers are the easy part of the problem. Translation is almost completely solved. However, the abstractions over the top at both the conceptual and structural level (logic->machine) are definitely not solved.
- scott_s 15y agoI disagree. I think the most pressing issue facing computer science right now is how to express and exploit parallelism in a way that most programmers can benefit in most applications that they write. The expression part of that problem is languages and compilers. The exploitation part of that problem is compilers and systems. Anyway, it sounds like when you say "computer science" you mean what most of us call "theoretical computer science." You're free to define words however you want, but you should expect confusion when you try to communicate with other people using those words. Theoretical computer science is still actively researched. You seem pretty confident that not much is going on, but do you keep up with their conferences and journals?
- pointyhat 15y agoI do keep on top of things, but unfortunately the academic "industry" doesn't like to really push the boat out. Radicalism and original thought are frowned upon in the scientific community. Everything is the same ideas recycled and repackaged slightly differently.