4 Dec
2014
4 Dec
'14
8:47 a.m.
I love APL BTW. I just don't have the time it deserves :D
There used to be a distinction between applications level programming and
systems level programming. I've coded hundreds of thousands of lines in C
and my personal opinion on it is that you spend unnecessary brain power on
security issues. I didn't like the flat namespace and lack of modular
abstraction above function. There may be solutions to both these issues in
modern C, but I've not seen much evidence. I didn't take to C++ as I felt
it was both a systems and applications level programming language and
didn't stand easy in either camp.
The key difference between applications level programming, such as when
writing a word processor, is to use a programming language that is more
productive. You don't need low-level access routinely. If required, you
interface with targeted C or assembler level modules with a single, defined
purpose. What you need is a language this is rich and expressive with a
broad coverage of libraries you can leverage to make the task easier. At
the same time you should be protected from shooting yourself in the foot.
Maybe the *real* answer to the question is that the smart programmer would
pick two languages to get the job done... systems level routines in C or
assember, high-level routines in a more domain-specific language. I'm
thinking here of VAXTPU for example. VMS, with the common-calling standard,
makes this a trivially viable option. Personally I can't say what language
I would use for applications level programming without more investigation.
I understand the benefits of knowing a language. It would be easier for me
to write in C because I don't have the learning curve. For the purposes of
discussions it would better to have the same view of the programming doing
the task as a reader of a scientific paper. Highly intelligent but with no
domain specific knowledge.
Has anyone considered whether it would be possible to port lua to the PDP?
It has a compact run time system. There is a microprocessor port available:
http://www.eluaproject.net/
Mark.
On 4 December 2014 at 07:30, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 12/03/2014 06:45 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
This argument is so old, and so tiring.
Can't we just bury it?
Yes, some bugs will be caught by stronger types and more type checking.
The same stronger type system will cause people to swear and be upset
and try to work around it from time to time.
And yet, we have APL, which doesn't give a fig about type. If Ada is a
fascist, APL is a hippie. Yet, somehow, useful work gets done with it.
I think the type thing is overblown. However, the ability to create
abstract types can be very useful, particularly if relations and operations
on mixed-type expressions can be exhaustively defined.
Of course, used incorrectly, it's just another set of bugs.
--Chuck