4 ms·
I get your and the article's drift, but saying it won't come to pass because of grumpy programmers is IMO a bit unfair. I believe it'll come to pass, but it'll
by SanderNL 4y ago
I get your and the article's drift, but saying it won't come to pass because of grumpy programmers is IMO a bit unfair. I believe it'll come to pass, but it'll take a while because there's not a huge need for it right now.
I believe the whole computing ecosystem is very shallow at the moment. There are lots of tools and lots of programming languages, but they are all shockingly similar. There is just too much monoculture going on. We used to have APL, Lisp, Prolog. Weird stuff. Weird OSes. We need more of that weird stuff again. But there has to be some economic incentive for that to happen and I'm not seeing it at the moment.
Stuff like Smalltalk or even something like Symbolics' machines would be a better fit for people needing a more high-level approach to computing. These tools see very little if any real funding/action and my hunch is that this will change in the future. Not now, but someday. When indeed perhaps the philosophers, artists and psychologists of this world need to do some programming. I'm not a big fan of these kinds of systems, because I am one of those grumpy bastards that don't agree with "123" == 123 but I do see how these paradigms can fit other types of people more readily.
To be honest, I don't think we've even scratched the surface of what is possible.
Edit: OK I can't resist. "012" == ?
This is making me lose sleep. These things are NOT the same. There, I said it.
- pmichaud 4y agoRe: your edit, I think the real answer is that the correct translation is fully context dependent, and the people who want it strict want to basically force/precompute the context, vs the people who want it loose want the context itself to smartly decide what the string means to itself. The problem is that modern paradigms are squishy about this, and aren’t smart enough to consistently do the right thing, so real systems end up both too strict and brittle for the real world domain but also too loose and ambiguous to be bug free.
- wvenable 4y agoA monoculture is a sign of maturity. In the past, most programming languages were awful in one way or another. Whether it was C, Fortran, APL, Prolog, COBOL, Basic, etc -- all uniquely terrible. But now every programming language is pretty decent.