3 ms·
I think the issue here is that we have two opposing theses on how this works. I posit that the programming ecosystem is very much like any other ecosystem in th
by Udo 12y ago
I think the issue here is that we have two opposing theses on how this works. I posit that the programming ecosystem is very much like any other ecosystem in that there is are many organisms within it, for a good reason. For example, looking at nature, you might ask yourself why biology hasn't converged on a single lifeform yet, and whether it's not simply an issue of having all the right genes and discarding those that are not so good. But that's obviously not how it works. There are niches and different strategies for solving different problems. There is no one genome that solves everything. And yes, every single codon is a decision that opens doors and closes others as well.
If I understood you correctly, your position is the inverse of that thesis. You argue that there is a base abstraction that should work equally well in every context, and that specialization could come in the form of optionals piled on top of the one true base. There is no mathematical reason why this should be unworkable, but a solution so far eludes both programmers and evolutionary processes alike. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go ahead and try solving it. It's a worthy project. If you believe you can come up with common denominators that cover all aspects of all previous languages, by all means: give it a try!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 12y ago>For example, looking at nature, you might ask yourself why biology hasn't converged on a single lifeform yet, and whether it's not simply an issue of having all the right genes and discarding those that are not so good. But that's obviously not how it works. There are niches and different strategies for solving different problems. There is no one genome that solves everything. And yet, nature already has "converged" sort of into humans, who are "master of all trades" sort of, and somewhat analogous to the "full-spectrum language" I'm talking about. And as with that language and other languages, the existence of humans doesn't mean all other lifeforms will perish or dissapear. >* There is no mathematical reason why this should be unworkable, but a solution so far eludes both programmers and evolutionary processes alike.* Well, for evolutionary processes we have humans. And soon, if we are to believe some pundits, the "singularity". As for languages, we have some near damn all rounders, but my observation is that it's not because it has "eluded programmers" that we don't have it, but because of business reasons (e.g. some company wants to only target segment X), oss being underfunded, narrow scope, etc.