5 ms·

Too Many Programming Languages

5 points by supster 11y ago

nostrademons 11y ago
This doesn't work because there are a number of semantic distinctions layered even on top of Lisp-like syntax tree, and all those languages have different semantics. Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, and Arc are all Lisps, but you can't use code written in one of them inside a different one. The way you get language interoperability is to define a common data format and a common way of indicating which code will execute next. A number of standards do this - platform ABIs, C calling conventions, LLVM/JVM/.NET bitcode, RPC frameworks like gRPC/Thrift/CapnProto/MessagePack/JSON-RPC/Avro - but they're all lower level than you would normally want to program in.
Nadya 11y ago
>Then we could all write in our favorite languages and make sure the code is transplied to Lisp - just a thought. I read this as: "There are too many programming languages. Why can't everyone just use Lisp?" I laughed a little to myself due to the Lisp user stereotype of parading Lisp around as every programmer's savior. Did it come off that way to anyone else? I don't mean to offend, as I rather enjoy Lisp too. But I felt the premise of the article was "all code should transpile to other code" and I ended up reading it as "all code should be Lisp". Maybe that was the intended humor. Maybe humor wasn't intended. Either way, I got a laugh out of it. There are a ton of libraries/wrappers use to run X code in Y language or middle-men. Rubypython [一] comes to mind. While it doesn't fully cover the problem it's a start. However is that method the one we want to use? Does a better method even exist or is a better method even possible? [一] http://rubypython.rubyforge.org/ http://rubypython.rubyforge.org/
- supster 11y ago
  Lol, OP here, I guess in an indirect way that's how it came off. I don't really think everyone should write in Lisp, but rather that we all should be able to write interoperable code, and one suggested solution is a tree like structure - which happens to be Lisp. Maybe a Unix pipe type construct would be better? Just some thoughts on a lazy Thursday afternoon.
c-rack 11y ago
Projects like zproto [1], by using the "Universal Code Generator" GSL [2], have maybe already found the "common denominator" you are looking for. [1] https://github.com/zeromq/zproto https://github.com/zeromq/zproto [2] https://github.com/imatix/gsl https://github.com/imatix/gsl
ingenter 11y ago
Here's a crazy thought: we already have a common denominator -- IPC. You can write part of your program in Java and other part of it in Python. But the cost of transmitting messages is considered too high most of the time.
mlanza 11y ago
I suggested something similar to this a while back: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Tech_20Spec_20Plugins http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Tech_20Spec_20Plugins

5 points by supster 11y ago

This doesn't work because there are a number of semantic distinctions layered even on top of Lisp-like syntax tree, and all those languages have different semantics. Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, and Arc are all Lisps, but you can't use code written in one of them inside a different one. The way you get language interoperability is to define a common data format and a common way of indicating which code will execute next. A number of standards do this - platform ABIs, C calling conventions, LLVM/JVM/.NET bitcode, RPC frameworks like gRPC/Thrift/CapnProto/MessagePack/JSON-RPC/Avro - but they're all lower level than you would normally want to program in.

Nadya 11y ago

>Then we could all write in our favorite languages and make sure the code is transplied to Lisp - just a thought. I read this as: "There are too many programming languages. Why can't everyone just use Lisp?" I laughed a little to myself due to the Lisp user stereotype of parading Lisp around as every programmer's savior. Did it come off that way to anyone else? I don't mean to offend, as I rather enjoy Lisp too. But I felt the premise of the article was "all code should transpile to other code" and I ended up reading it as "all code should be Lisp". Maybe that was the intended humor. Maybe humor wasn't intended. Either way, I got a laugh out of it. There are a ton of libraries/wrappers use to run X code in Y language or middle-men. Rubypython [一] comes to mind. While it doesn't fully cover the problem it's a start. However is that method the one we want to use? Does a better method even exist or is a better method even possible? [一] http://rubypython.rubyforge.org/ http://rubypython.rubyforge.org/

supster 11y ago
Lol, OP here, I guess in an indirect way that's how it came off. I don't really think everyone should write in Lisp, but rather that we all should be able to write interoperable code, and one suggested solution is a tree like structure - which happens to be Lisp. Maybe a Unix pipe type construct would be better? Just some thoughts on a lazy Thursday afternoon.

c-rack 11y ago

Projects like zproto [1], by using the "Universal Code Generator" GSL [2], have maybe already found the "common denominator" you are looking for. [1] https://github.com/zeromq/zproto https://github.com/zeromq/zproto [2] https://github.com/imatix/gsl https://github.com/imatix/gsl

ingenter 11y ago

Here's a crazy thought: we already have a common denominator -- IPC. You can write part of your program in Java and other part of it in Python. But the cost of transmitting messages is considered too high most of the time.

mlanza 11y ago

I suggested something similar to this a while back: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Tech_20Spec_20Plugins http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Tech_20Spec_20Plugins