[HN Gopher] Growing a Language [pdf] (1998)
___________________________________________________________________
Growing a Language [pdf] (1998)
Author : ColinWright
Score : 39 points
Date : 2025-04-14 16:34 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (langev.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (langev.com)
| ColinWright wrote:
| This is the PDF of the talk given here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
|
| It's Guy Steele[0]'s keynote at the 1998 ACM[1] OOPSLA[2]
| conference.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_L._Steele_Jr.
|
| [1] Association for Computing Machinery
|
| [2] The 13th annual ACM SIGPLAN[3] Conference on Object-Oriented
| Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications.
|
| [3] SIGPLAN is the Association for Computing Machinery's Special
| Interest Group (SIG) on programming languages.
| kreetx wrote:
| This is one of the talks I watch over and over - though it has
| computer science value then its entertainment value is much
| much higher still.
| gjvc wrote:
| The OOPSLA 1997 keynote was a banger as well. That was truly an
| exciting time.
| senkora wrote:
| > An operator can be overloaded in C plus plus, but right now
| operators in the Java pro- gramming language can not be
| overloaded by the programmer, though names of methods may be
| overloaded. I would like to change that
|
| It's a shame that he lost this battle. Operator overloading
| really does make it a lot nicer to design certain kinds of
| libraries.
| chubot wrote:
| FWIW another thing that Guy Steele advocated was value types,
| which as I understand it is ongoing work:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valhalla_(Java_languag...
|
| https://openjdk.org/projects/valhalla/
|
| _I have said in the past, and will say now, that I think it
| would be a good thing for the Java programming language to add
| generic types and to let the user define overloaded operators._
|
| He did get the generic types though, I think that was well over
| a decade ago now
| roetlich wrote:
| Or you could use C# and get all of those features.
| steveklabnik wrote:
| > I think that was well over a decade ago now
|
| This was in Java 5, in 2004. So two decades!
| swyx wrote:
| i mean okay but also it makes it impossible to have an open
| source ecosystem with shared libraries because suddenly things
| dont mean the same thing in one system vs another. i was
| interviewing at Jane St and realized their OCaml completely
| doesnt work with the rest of the world - and its fine if you're
| Jane St i guess but that really sucks for the "health" of a
| language ecosystem.
| Someone wrote:
| Why would a + b
|
| suffer more from this than plus(a,b)
|
| ? In both cases, libraries will only clash if both define a
| function with the same name taking an _A_ and a _B_. The only
| difference is that it is called _+_ in the former case, and
| _plus_ in the latter.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-18 23:01 UTC)