2 ms·

> We've only been speaking in terms of single languages, though. Have you combined different programs together before and thought, "Hmm, this is kind of like a

by veqq 2y ago

> We've only been speaking in terms of single languages, though. Have you combined different programs together before and thought, "Hmm, this is kind of like a pattern for..."? It's metacircular all the way down. In Forth or Tcl, every command can be its own program. Deploying over many machines has similar dynamics to multithreading on one etc. The same concepts, notation etc. apply - you abstract over them and voila. Better primitive sets make things manageable, or don't. You have reversed the point of patterns, to be a tool of thought and something to aim for. Instead, they are something you notice by a certain outcome, which guides you when you want that result again. > Lisp ... tooling for boilerplate That's where you've missed it. This isn't some functional propaganda; there are many paradigms, OOP and functional are just single ones. You are thinking in terms of boilerplate when these other paradigms just don't have any of it. You can even do OOP without the boilerplate - it's incidental to your tools, Common Lisp with CLOS is an OOP language. The patterns in Lisp architecture are about fundamental issues of domain modeling, how to structure teams, organizations and manage who should implement what. But you can even jump higher in scope and model that in code and "compile your company". As the code executes, at some points it will ask for user input, having an accountant do so and so action or asking a committee to assemble for something else. My company works this way. ------- > no programming language can expect to be a universal one and still have the same ergonomics as a purposeful one or even a DSL Yes and no. Yes, overfitting a tool to the current problem space restricts it, but DSLs can have the exact same ergonomics as any other language. Cf. Language Oriented Programming: https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/why-lop-why-racket.html https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/why-lop-why-racket.html

turtleyacht 2y ago
> OOP without the boilerplate Agreed. Dr. Samek says as much too and presents an object-oriented version of C, C+, in Practical Statecharts in C/C++. Thank-you for your replies. If you happen to see this comment, I wanted to ask about reification. The pattern is the idea, the design reifies--"makes real"--the pattern. Something else--whether code, constellation of programs, or pigeons--implements the design. There can be many reifications of a pattern, and there can be many implementations of a design. Do those ideas ring true? > compile your company I've seen this done. Human-readable instructions coexist with SQL snippets and scripts. However, once it becomes tribal knowledge, folks may not understand it. If manual approvals had also been processed through a pipeline instead of emails and "stop and start," it may have still been in use.

by veqq 2y ago

turtleyacht 2y ago

> OOP without the boilerplate Agreed. Dr. Samek says as much too and presents an object-oriented version of C, C+, in Practical Statecharts in C/C++. Thank-you for your replies. If you happen to see this comment, I wanted to ask about reification. The pattern is the idea, the design reifies--"makes real"--the pattern. Something else--whether code, constellation of programs, or pigeons--implements the design. There can be many reifications of a pattern, and there can be many implementations of a design. Do those ideas ring true? > compile your company I've seen this done. Human-readable instructions coexist with SQL snippets and scripts. However, once it becomes tribal knowledge, folks may not understand it. If manual approvals had also been processed through a pipeline instead of emails and "stop and start," it may have still been in use.