12 ms·

> By allowing general architectures, Objective-S is the first general purpose programming language. Really? I stopped reading at this spot, since this claim is

> By allowing general architectures, Objective-S is the first general purpose programming language. Really? I stopped reading at this spot, since this claim is so ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_programming_la...

mpweiher 4y ago
You might try reading further, because the claim is actually well-supported. Just because we call something "general purpose" doesn't mean it actually is.
- EddySchauHai 4y ago
  If you can build Objective-S in a language then isn't the language that contains the set of Objective-S and other languages in theory more general purpose? I'm not sure I get the definition.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    I guess it's the same question as whether the ability to implement an Erlang VM in C makes C a functional and/or concurrency-oriented language.
    - User23 4y ago
      C is a functional language[1]. That’s one of the finer examples of Haha, Only Serious I’ve seen for programming. [1] http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functional http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functio...
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  I like what I've seen of Objective-S; I completely support and appreciate the thought you've put into it, but I don't think that's a great claim to make. Implicit is the claim that C, Lisp, Modula-2 are not general purpose languages, which is ridiculous. You may not want to deal with C's various problems, and it may take pages and pages of code to do in C what one line of Objective-S could do, but doesn't mean it can't be done.
- munchler 4y ago
  I read the rest of the About page and didn't see anything supporting this claim. What makes Objective-S more general than other languages? If it's the four architecture "styles" listed, I'm pretty sure other languages can do the same: * OO and Call/Return: Supported by every OO language. * Pipes and Filters: Supported by every functional programming language. * REST: Supported by many modern languages. (Go springs to mind as a typical example.) * Implicit Invocation / Event Broadcast: Supported by many modern languages.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    I believe the argument is that this language has special syntax for these various "architectures", instead of other languages where you express those ideas with the syntax of calling/returning functions.
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    You picked a different tool for each of the different entry, while the author is arguing their programming language is general purpose, because it allow to do each entry you listed, in a single language.
    - haimez 4y ago
      Right. A different _tool_ because they described paradigms aren’t language paradigms- they’re patterns or frameworks expressed more easily but also more commonly in some languages than others because of completely unrelated historical accidents. We have different languages because we do different things with them, and any Turing complete language can achieve any desired program. So what we’re left with is a misunderstanding about what is the “language”, “runtime”, and … “pattern?” There is no useful definition of “general purpose language” except to disqualify languages that are not general purpose. That’s a fine distinction to make when describing how SQL will never replace JavaScript, Java, or C- but a useless distinction when describing the characteristics of your new language that is also Turing complete. In particular item 4 “Implicit Invocation / Event Broadcast” is one of those things that hides an enormous amount of implementation complexity that arguably shouldn’t be made magical. Like async / await or go channels, the details make all the difference and there’s not a one size fits all approach that you can take without creating serious problems for other cases. It has to be an opinionated and therefore (sometimes/often) approach depending on what you’re attempting to accomplish.
- User23 4y ago
  Maybe it appears so to people who have never heard of Lisp and or used it.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Lisp's core is eval/apply.
    - User23 4y ago
      Yes and? EVAL isn’t call/return, it’s a mathematical function from type S-expression to type S-expression modulo some details. At least it was to start, Lisp now has side effects which considerably opens up the domain of easily expressed programs. Perhaps you’re confused because you’ve never done anything nontrivial in a modern Lisp and the word function is so heavily overloaded? Here[1] is an example of the Actor model expressed in Common Lisp. It shows a paradigm that is very much not call and return expressed cleanly and directly. [1] https://github.com/naveensundarg/Common-Lisp-Actors https://github.com/naveensundarg/Common-Lisp-Actors
      - mpweiher 4y ago
        Interesting. > EVAL isn't call/return, it's a mathematical function Hmm...a "function" you say. What do you do with a function in a computer system? I mean, for it to actually do something? Look at it? Digest it? Sing it? Or maybe...call it? And when that function is done, after you called it what does it do? Dissolve? Perambulate? Or maybe: return? Of course, a function that you call and that then returns has absolutely nothing to do with the call/return architectural style. Sorry, my bad, what was I thinking? And no, your example does not invalidate what I wrote, as it doesn't implement it "cleanly and directly", at least not to my standards. Maybe to yours, but not to mine. The problem with Lisp DSLs is that the result always just look like Lisp, and Lisp is eval/apply. So (send my-actor message_args) very much looks like a Lisp function call. It seems to be the function "send" with arguments "my-actor" and "message_args". (Of course the Actor model is close enough that it might not matter). Which is exactly the problem we have in other languages. At the very least, it would have to be my-actor async messge_args For it to qualify as resembling an actual send and not just another function call. I can also write: source.connect( target ); And to you that would apparently mean that I have implemented pipes and filters "cleanly and directly" in, say, C++ and Java. And it would be just as wrong.
- User23 4y ago
  In that case would you please explain this apparent bafflegab? What we currently call general purpose languages are actually domain specific languages for the domain of algorithms.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Hmm...not sure what you find gobbledygooky or jargon-y about this...it is about as clear as I can make it. I mean it is definitely a surprising even somewhat baffling insight, but once it is there it seems pretty clear. I gave a longer explanation here: https://2020.programming-conference.org/details/salon-2020-papers/5/Can-Programmers-Escape-the-Gentle-Tyranny-of-call-return- https://2020.programming-conference.org/details/salon-2020-p... (That paper is also linked from the publications page: http://objective.st/Publications/ http://objective.st/Publications/ ) Short summary: 1. Historically, computers were created to compute results (hence the name) using algorithms. So you have a function/procedure that you give parameters, it executes the algorithm, spits out the answer and terminates. 2. Programming languages reflect this. Heck, the granddaddy of most mainstream programming languages is ALGOL, the ALGOrithmic Language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL 3. The majority of programs/system today are not like (1). See for example Chatty: https://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/ehci/ehci2007/Chatty07.pdf or also Guy Steele's opening statement for the "Objects have failed" OOPSLA panel: https://www.dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveNotFailedNarr.html "Another weakness of procedural and functional programming is that their viewpoint assumes a process by which "inputs" are transformed into "outputs"; [...] Ongoing behavior, not completion, is now of primary interest." Happy to answer any more specific questions. Again, the insight is definitely somewhere between surprising and outright baffling, particularly because call/return is very much paradigmatic in the Kuhnian sense: a set of shared and implicit assumptions, so things we don't even think about but that form the basis of everything else.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Let's put your claim that Objective-S can be used to implement different architectural styles to the test: implement Prolog or some other logic programming language as an architecture! I think the other architectures you've listed there aren't different enough from the typical call/return style of algorithm-centered languages, but logic programming certainly is.
whiddershins 4y ago
Telling everyone you stopped reading in the first paragraph isn’t the most compelling way to demonstrate your point.
airstrike 4y ago
Unfortunately OP submitted the About page rather than the home page. From https://objective.st https://objective.st: > Objective-S is possibly the first general purpose programming language. It makes creating well-architected and efficient programs not only straightforward, but easy, fun and fast. > Yes, this sounds insane, programming languages we call "general purpose" number in at least the hundreds, starting with C, Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python etc. > However, these are actually DSLs for the domain of algorithms, and this architectural mismatch, the fact that we have to use algorithm DSLs for tasks that are not primarily algorithmic in nature lies at the heart of much of the pain we have in software development today.
- dang 4y ago
  We've changed to the home page above. Thanks!

mpweiher 4y ago

You might try reading further, because the claim is actually well-supported. Just because we call something "general purpose" doesn't mean it actually is.

EddySchauHai 4y ago
If you can build Objective-S in a language then isn't the language that contains the set of Objective-S and other languages in theory more general purpose? I'm not sure I get the definition.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  I guess it's the same question as whether the ability to implement an Erlang VM in C makes C a functional and/or concurrency-oriented language.
  - User23 4y ago
    C is a functional language[1]. That’s one of the finer examples of Haha, Only Serious I’ve seen for programming. [1] http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functional http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functio...
KerrAvon 4y ago
I like what I've seen of Objective-S; I completely support and appreciate the thought you've put into it, but I don't think that's a great claim to make. Implicit is the claim that C, Lisp, Modula-2 are not general purpose languages, which is ridiculous. You may not want to deal with C's various problems, and it may take pages and pages of code to do in C what one line of Objective-S could do, but doesn't mean it can't be done.
munchler 4y ago
I read the rest of the About page and didn't see anything supporting this claim. What makes Objective-S more general than other languages? If it's the four architecture "styles" listed, I'm pretty sure other languages can do the same: * OO and Call/Return: Supported by every OO language. * Pipes and Filters: Supported by every functional programming language. * REST: Supported by many modern languages. (Go springs to mind as a typical example.) * Implicit Invocation / Event Broadcast: Supported by many modern languages.
- googlryas 4y ago
  I believe the argument is that this language has special syntax for these various "architectures", instead of other languages where you express those ideas with the syntax of calling/returning functions.
- Kuinox 4y ago
  You picked a different tool for each of the different entry, while the author is arguing their programming language is general purpose, because it allow to do each entry you listed, in a single language.
  - haimez 4y ago
    Right. A different _tool_ because they described paradigms aren’t language paradigms- they’re patterns or frameworks expressed more easily but also more commonly in some languages than others because of completely unrelated historical accidents. We have different languages because we do different things with them, and any Turing complete language can achieve any desired program. So what we’re left with is a misunderstanding about what is the “language”, “runtime”, and … “pattern?” There is no useful definition of “general purpose language” except to disqualify languages that are not general purpose. That’s a fine distinction to make when describing how SQL will never replace JavaScript, Java, or C- but a useless distinction when describing the characteristics of your new language that is also Turing complete. In particular item 4 “Implicit Invocation / Event Broadcast” is one of those things that hides an enormous amount of implementation complexity that arguably shouldn’t be made magical. Like async / await or go channels, the details make all the difference and there’s not a one size fits all approach that you can take without creating serious problems for other cases. It has to be an opinionated and therefore (sometimes/often) approach depending on what you’re attempting to accomplish.
User23 4y ago
Maybe it appears so to people who have never heard of Lisp and or used it.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Lisp's core is eval/apply.
  - User23 4y ago
    Yes and? EVAL isn’t call/return, it’s a mathematical function from type S-expression to type S-expression modulo some details. At least it was to start, Lisp now has side effects which considerably opens up the domain of easily expressed programs. Perhaps you’re confused because you’ve never done anything nontrivial in a modern Lisp and the word function is so heavily overloaded? Here[1] is an example of the Actor model expressed in Common Lisp. It shows a paradigm that is very much not call and return expressed cleanly and directly. [1] https://github.com/naveensundarg/Common-Lisp-Actors https://github.com/naveensundarg/Common-Lisp-Actors
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      Interesting. > EVAL isn't call/return, it's a mathematical function Hmm...a "function" you say. What do you do with a function in a computer system? I mean, for it to actually do something? Look at it? Digest it? Sing it? Or maybe...call it? And when that function is done, after you called it what does it do? Dissolve? Perambulate? Or maybe: return? Of course, a function that you call and that then returns has absolutely nothing to do with the call/return architectural style. Sorry, my bad, what was I thinking? And no, your example does not invalidate what I wrote, as it doesn't implement it "cleanly and directly", at least not to my standards. Maybe to yours, but not to mine. The problem with Lisp DSLs is that the result always just look like Lisp, and Lisp is eval/apply. So (send my-actor message_args) very much looks like a Lisp function call. It seems to be the function "send" with arguments "my-actor" and "message_args". (Of course the Actor model is close enough that it might not matter). Which is exactly the problem we have in other languages. At the very least, it would have to be my-actor async messge_args For it to qualify as resembling an actual send and not just another function call. I can also write: source.connect( target ); And to you that would apparently mean that I have implemented pipes and filters "cleanly and directly" in, say, C++ and Java. And it would be just as wrong.
User23 4y ago
In that case would you please explain this apparent bafflegab? What we currently call general purpose languages are actually domain specific languages for the domain of algorithms.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Hmm...not sure what you find gobbledygooky or jargon-y about this...it is about as clear as I can make it. I mean it is definitely a surprising even somewhat baffling insight, but once it is there it seems pretty clear. I gave a longer explanation here: https://2020.programming-conference.org/details/salon-2020-papers/5/Can-Programmers-Escape-the-Gentle-Tyranny-of-call-return- https://2020.programming-conference.org/details/salon-2020-p... (That paper is also linked from the publications page: http://objective.st/Publications/ http://objective.st/Publications/ ) Short summary: 1. Historically, computers were created to compute results (hence the name) using algorithms. So you have a function/procedure that you give parameters, it executes the algorithm, spits out the answer and terminates. 2. Programming languages reflect this. Heck, the granddaddy of most mainstream programming languages is ALGOL, the ALGOrithmic Language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL 3. The majority of programs/system today are not like (1). See for example Chatty: https://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/ehci/ehci2007/Chatty07.pdf or also Guy Steele's opening statement for the "Objects have failed" OOPSLA panel: https://www.dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveNotFailedNarr.html "Another weakness of procedural and functional programming is that their viewpoint assumes a process by which "inputs" are transformed into "outputs"; [...] Ongoing behavior, not completion, is now of primary interest." Happy to answer any more specific questions. Again, the insight is definitely somewhere between surprising and outright baffling, particularly because call/return is very much paradigmatic in the Kuhnian sense: a set of shared and implicit assumptions, so things we don't even think about but that form the basis of everything else.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Let's put your claim that Objective-S can be used to implement different architectural styles to the test: implement Prolog or some other logic programming language as an architecture! I think the other architectures you've listed there aren't different enough from the typical call/return style of algorithm-centered languages, but logic programming certainly is.

whiddershins 4y ago

Telling everyone you stopped reading in the first paragraph isn’t the most compelling way to demonstrate your point.

airstrike 4y ago

Unfortunately OP submitted the About page rather than the home page. From https://objective.st https://objective.st: > Objective-S is possibly the first general purpose programming language. It makes creating well-architected and efficient programs not only straightforward, but easy, fun and fast. > Yes, this sounds insane, programming languages we call "general purpose" number in at least the hundreds, starting with C, Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python etc. > However, these are actually DSLs for the domain of algorithms, and this architectural mismatch, the fact that we have to use algorithm DSLs for tasks that are not primarily algorithmic in nature lies at the heart of much of the pain we have in software development today.

dang 4y ago
We've changed to the home page above. Thanks!