29 ms·
So in conclusion, it's not a systems programming language. I think we got that. So to break it down, and this is how I understand it as a user, it's a collect
by bananas 13y ago
So in conclusion, it's not a systems programming language.
I think we got that.
So to break it down, and this is how I understand it as a user, it's a collection of algorithms, Lego bricks of math and a library of data sources glued together with a functional REPL that is semantically represented as a notebook.
Can you stick that on the web site somewhere without the millions of bullet points, marketoid spew and weaseling.
- jessedhillon 13y agoMy God, the keyboard courage runs thick on this thread.
- bananas 13y agoYeah it does. We've experienced the emperor's new clothes before so scepticism and rational analysis is important.
- akater 13y agoMaybe system programmers are “doing it wrong” now? Even when you write a simple VGA driver you have to solve some equations. They are simple, so what does an average [good] C programmer does? He writes them down in his favourite inexpressive specialized language. Consequences: 1) a simple concept immediately becomes an incomprehensible mess; 2) approaches using more advanced ideas rarely get the proper attention because a system programmer is unable even to write them down, let alone reason about them and tweak them. There is no reason why a VGA driver for certain microprocessor could not be generated by a high-level language with the basic concepts behind it expressed more clearly, and nevertheless formally.
- bananas 13y agoAgree with you entirely (especially after recently writing an SSDP and UPnP stack) but unfortunately the academics with all the supposed solutions have managed to deliver nothing with any momentum, so we're stuck with a 40 year old programming system and 30 year old abstractions. Then again, you know what? It works pretty well so perhaps we're not doing it wrong