Post 331371 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
(DIR) More posts by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
(DIR) Post #330577 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
2018-10-02T15:46:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
This dumb article is going around, about how it's "irresponsible" to make "new programming languages" because of community fragmentation. It's about two paragraphs long. Somehow, it's front page on both HN and lobste.rs & I don't want to live in this universe anymore.
(DIR) Post #330578 by uranther@cybre.space
2018-10-02T16:05:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@enkiv2 The author makes a good point but doesn't make it well. Of course it doesn't mean we should not make new languages. The real problem that I see is NIH syndrome. Should a language like Dart really exist? Then we have TypeScript, PureScript, CoffeeScript... (Did I miss any? Of course I did!) Because developer sees language A and sees it lacks feature X. And instead of learning history, decides to rehash the same shit, duplicating others' work and increasing fragmentation.
(DIR) Post #330676 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
2018-10-02T16:14:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uranther I'm not so sure about that. Is it really fragmented? Any language worth its salt plays well with other languages (with foreign function interfaces or whatever), and any programmer worth their salt can pick up somebody's hack dialect of a language they already know quickly. I'd be shocked if TypeScript & PureScript code can't interface with CoffeeScript code, or if it's not trivial for somebody to read a codebase in those and modify it with regular JS.
(DIR) Post #330773 by uranther@cybre.space
2018-10-02T16:24:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@enkiv2 I think the mere thought of a different language is enough to scare off many developers from a codebase. Those mentioned are different enough to cause confusion or be impenetrable for someone who lacks the interest and time and payoff to learn the nuances of said dialect.The path is clearer to making a new language than modifying an existing one, i.e. antisocial engineers would rather solve computer problems than people problems. Then you have the corporate fiefdoms.
(DIR) Post #330859 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
2018-10-02T16:34:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uranther I understand why somebody might be wary of taking on a project in a language they don't already know when there's a deadline. Ultimately, though, this is about as difficult as an unfamiliar framework or library in a language you do know. When there's no deadline, this problem goes away -- outside of this context, people aren't even in a position to be forced to deal with a project they don't want to understand.
(DIR) Post #330922 by uranther@cybre.space
2018-10-02T16:41:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@enkiv2 My counter-argument to the OP is that many varied experimentation is ultimately good for the industry. It just may not appear so because it doesn't follow a clearly visible linear path.Capitalists will see glacial-pace innovation and will not resist the urge to forge their own (likely ill-conceived) path.
(DIR) Post #330934 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
2018-10-02T16:36:48Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
@uranther Every programmer should develop their own new language, the same way that every programmer should write an OS -- not because the result will be valuable, but because the experience will teach you things that can't be taught by books or an instructor. Whether or not anybody should use these languages is a totally different question from whether or not they should exist. They should exist, and more, and folks should use common sense when deciding on language choice.
(DIR) Post #331046 by ACE_Recliner@misskey.xyz
2018-10-02T16:52:18.752Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@enkiv2@eldritch.cafe The only "too many languages" scenario I would actually be concerned about is "too many proprietary languages"
(DIR) Post #331165 by QBFreak@mhz.social
2018-10-02T17:02:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uranther @enkiv2 https://xkcd.com/927/
(DIR) Post #331202 by uranther@cybre.space
2018-10-02T17:04:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@QBFreak @enkiv2 Its usefulness makes it a standard, not so much its codification and authority. :thaenking:
(DIR) Post #331353 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
2018-10-02T17:12:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ACE_Recliner Me too, although luckily proprietary languages have a tendency to die or stop being proprietary. Few companies have the clout to push a language and shoulder all the development for the toolchain internally while also defending against competitors & independent reimplementations for very long. (The only real success I can think of is flash, but that's because the IDE was such a big part of dev & the audience was not programmers.)
(DIR) Post #331354 by ACE_Recliner@misskey.xyz
2018-10-02T17:17:57.389Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@enkiv2@eldritch.cafe Right, but a lot of these *failed* proprietary languages/IDEs can be quite interesting in their own right (HyperCard, Prograph, the dialect of Common Lisp used in Genera). Also, most performant implementations of some standardized languages (like, say, APL) are proprietary as well which is rather irritating to say the least.
(DIR) Post #331371 by enkiv2@eldritch.cafe
2018-10-02T17:14:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ACE_Recliner Java and C#, despite being developed by huge companies, had multiple independent reimplementations (including open source ones). They've been successful at becoming popular but that popularity ensured that they failed to remain totally proprietary.
(DIR) Post #331372 by ACE_Recliner@misskey.xyz
2018-10-02T17:19:01.566Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@enkiv2@eldritch.cafe This is only true if your language gains enough traction.
(DIR) Post #332598 by simon_brooke@social.yyy.scot
2018-10-02T18:45:24Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@uranther@enkiv2There are essentially three approaches to programming languages: 1. Build down from some clear calculus (e.g. lambda calculus => Lisp, first order predicate calculus => Prolog, relational calculus => SQL)2. Build up from a macro assembler (e.g. ALGOL, CPL, BCPL, C, C++, Java...)3. Bundle up a collection of cheap hacks with no coherent model.
(DIR) Post #334154 by jabyrd3@masto.dev.host
2018-10-02T20:10:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ACE_Recliner @enkiv2 the prototypical scripting language apple made for the newton is a great primer for understanding how js came to be
(DIR) Post #334155 by ACE_Recliner@misskey.xyz
2018-10-02T20:17:37.481Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jabyrd3@masto.dev.host @enkiv2@eldritch.cafe NewtonScript? Yeah, for sure. Also Self and Scheme. Also if we're on the topic of the Newton, Dylan and Bauhaus are really cool to look into