5 ms·

Funny the quote is from a 1981 issue of Byte. My first thought on reading the headline was "You mean like BASIC on the old 8-bit computers?"

0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
Or Forth on the old mainframes.
david927 12y ago
This is the quote you're referring to: An operating system is a collection of things that don't fit into a language. There shouldn't be one. I couldn't agree more. It's our languages that are wrong, not this statement.
- taeric 12y ago
  I don't follow. Either that, or I don't agree. Not sure which. I'm perfectly happy having multiple languages that are suited to different needs. Sure, I've been lured before by "one language to rule them all" style attempts at breaking this idea. I have been burned more than I've been helped by these forays. And I say this as a strong fan of lisp. A language basically designed to internalize other languages. For lunch. (Of course, I think these are not really incompatible. When writing lisp, I've found that you are so constrained in the syntax of lisp, that eventually it almost disappears and you start seeing the language of what it is you are doing, instead.) That said, I think the problem comes down to orthogonal changes. Simply put, when you have a language that is specifically used for one thing, effort can be placed into making sure it does that very well, at the expense of other things it could be used to do. Contrast with the languages that are designed to do anything, where you quickly find that in order to really get what you want, you have to write in very different idioms for different goals. Essentially finding that the same language is not. Would be akin to using a band saw to make an intricately carved figurine. Sure, it is doable, but probably more effort than it is worth for a person. "Right" tools for the right job and all of that.
  - kd0amg 12y ago
    Would be akin to using a band saw to make an intricately carved figurine. Sure, it is doable, but probably more effort than it is worth for a person. "Right" tools for the right job and all of that. After that, I can't resist linking this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoe7yc_whitetail-365-serious-bandsaw-skills_sport http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoe7yc_whitetail-365-seriou... It probably helps the analogy that even though I saw every movement he made, I had no clue what he was making until I saw the actual product.
    - taeric 12y ago
      Thanks for posting! I was thinking of that video, but couldn't find it when I wrote my post.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 12y ago
First thought C64 Basic :)
fineline 12y ago
Me too, first thought Apple BASIC.

0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago

Or Forth on the old mainframes.

david927 12y ago

This is the quote you're referring to: An operating system is a collection of things that don't fit into a language. There shouldn't be one. I couldn't agree more. It's our languages that are wrong, not this statement.

taeric 12y ago
I don't follow. Either that, or I don't agree. Not sure which. I'm perfectly happy having multiple languages that are suited to different needs. Sure, I've been lured before by "one language to rule them all" style attempts at breaking this idea. I have been burned more than I've been helped by these forays. And I say this as a strong fan of lisp. A language basically designed to internalize other languages. For lunch. (Of course, I think these are not really incompatible. When writing lisp, I've found that you are so constrained in the syntax of lisp, that eventually it almost disappears and you start seeing the language of what it is you are doing, instead.) That said, I think the problem comes down to orthogonal changes. Simply put, when you have a language that is specifically used for one thing, effort can be placed into making sure it does that very well, at the expense of other things it could be used to do. Contrast with the languages that are designed to do anything, where you quickly find that in order to really get what you want, you have to write in very different idioms for different goals. Essentially finding that the same language is not. Would be akin to using a band saw to make an intricately carved figurine. Sure, it is doable, but probably more effort than it is worth for a person. "Right" tools for the right job and all of that.
- kd0amg 12y ago
  Would be akin to using a band saw to make an intricately carved figurine. Sure, it is doable, but probably more effort than it is worth for a person. "Right" tools for the right job and all of that. After that, I can't resist linking this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoe7yc_whitetail-365-serious-bandsaw-skills_sport http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoe7yc_whitetail-365-seriou... It probably helps the analogy that even though I saw every movement he made, I had no clue what he was making until I saw the actual product.
  - taeric 12y ago
    Thanks for posting! I was thinking of that video, but couldn't find it when I wrote my post.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Nursie 12y ago

First thought C64 Basic :)

fineline 12y ago

Me too, first thought Apple BASIC.