4 ms·

Thanks for this comment. I agree! Those things you listed all interact with eachother. I am still trying to get my head around orthogonality in design and how

Thanks for this comment. I agree! Those things you listed all interact with eachother. I am still trying to get my head around orthogonality in design and how to design permutations/combinations that work together well and are flexible.

ethbr1 3y ago
I'd be fascinated to see a graph based approach to programming language features, but I'm not sure they're decomposable and independent enough to make it feasible. Start by listing out programming language qualities that are good/bad/intolerable for each of those other interaction categories, then work that backwards into a set of required features for a desired language. E.g. X makes writing a Y compiler optimization impossible
- samsquire 3y ago
  I have had the same thoughts. I am writing about your idea: Structured Interaction Programming: https://github.com/samsquire/ideas5#350-structured-interaction-programming-trying-to-restrict-interaction-complexity-and-implement-arbitrary-software-composability-of-abstractions https://github.com/samsquire/ideas5#350-structured-interacti... Knowledgegraph programming language: https://github.com/samsquire/ideas4#334-knowledgegraph-programming-language https://github.com/samsquire/ideas4#334-knowledgegraph-progr...
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Interesting thoughts! On structured iteration programming, it might be a valuable first step/prototype to see if you can generate a fact/association graph from historical discussions about programming language qualities. Much has been written (and continues to be!) in many high signal:noise sources. And some lower ones. (1) extracting a relationship graph between all mentioned qualities and (2) generating sentiment analysis on those relationships (even if positive/neutral/negative/unknown) might help bootstrap a more comprehensively-populated version that can then be refined.

ethbr1 3y ago

I'd be fascinated to see a graph based approach to programming language features, but I'm not sure they're decomposable and independent enough to make it feasible. Start by listing out programming language qualities that are good/bad/intolerable for each of those other interaction categories, then work that backwards into a set of required features for a desired language. E.g. X makes writing a Y compiler optimization impossible

samsquire 3y ago
I have had the same thoughts. I am writing about your idea: Structured Interaction Programming: https://github.com/samsquire/ideas5#350-structured-interaction-programming-trying-to-restrict-interaction-complexity-and-implement-arbitrary-software-composability-of-abstractions https://github.com/samsquire/ideas5#350-structured-interacti... Knowledgegraph programming language: https://github.com/samsquire/ideas4#334-knowledgegraph-programming-language https://github.com/samsquire/ideas4#334-knowledgegraph-progr...
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Interesting thoughts! On structured iteration programming, it might be a valuable first step/prototype to see if you can generate a fact/association graph from historical discussions about programming language qualities. Much has been written (and continues to be!) in many high signal:noise sources. And some lower ones. (1) extracting a relationship graph between all mentioned qualities and (2) generating sentiment analysis on those relationships (even if positive/neutral/negative/unknown) might help bootstrap a more comprehensively-populated version that can then be refined.