Container library (continued)

[Tim Rentsch]

http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

Yes, I've read this before, and it's an interesting read.

I don't agree with his thesis that there's a linear
spectrum of language capability. For example, functional
programming and logic programming both have a lot of power,
but I wouldn't say either one is uniformly more capable
than the other. Despite that however I think the basic
lesson he's trying to convey is a useful one for most
C (and also C++) programmers.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Nick Keighley <[email protected]> writes:

Yes, I've read this before, and it's an interesting read.

I don't agree with his thesis that there's a linear
spectrum of language capability.

"Languages fall along a continuum [4] of abstractness, from the most
powerful all the way down to machine languages..."

Did you see footnote [4]?

"[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top;
it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at
least a partial order."

That may not satisfy you but he addresses the issue; to the extent
that your representation of his thesis is a little misleading.

For example, functional
programming and logic programming both have a lot of power,
but I wouldn't say either one is uniformly more capable
than the other.

<snip>

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Nick Keighley <[email protected]> writes:

Yes, I've read this before, and it's an interesting read.

I don't agree with his thesis that there's a linear
spectrum of language capability.

"Languages fall along a continuum [4] of abstractness, from the most
powerful all the way down to machine languages..."

Did you see footnote [4]?

"[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top;
it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at
least a partial order."

That may not satisfy you but he addresses the issue; to the extent
that your representation of his thesis is a little misleading.

I didn't see the footnote, thank you for pointing it out.

However, my basic objection remains, because I don't think the
space is a lattice either (or even especially "lattice-like").
In particular, there's no obvious way to take the 'join' of
functional programming and logic programming, as one example.
The conceptual language that dominates both may not even exist,
and certainly doesn't exist now as far as I know. So although I
may have misrepresented the letter of the article's thesis, I
don't believe I've misrepresented its spirit.

(Despite the foregoing I think you're right that my previous
representation is a little misleading, which I hope has been
cleared up in this response.)

 

[Ian Collins]

Nick Keighley<[email protected]> writes:

Yes, I've read this before, and it's an interesting read.

I don't agree with his thesis that there's a linear
spectrum of language capability.

"Languages fall along a continuum [4] of abstractness, from the most
powerful all the way down to machine languages..."

Did you see footnote [4]?

"[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top;
it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at
least a partial order."

That may not satisfy you but he addresses the issue; to the extent
that your representation of his thesis is a little misleading.

It is an interesting if flawed thesis. I prefer to consider the
expressiveness (where a language like Common Lisp can be considered more
expressive than procedural languages) rather than the capability of a
programming language. Capability goes further than mere expressiveness;
neither PHP of Java would appear high on the expressiveness table but
they are both extremely capable. Their capability comes in part from
extensive library support.

The capability of a language is also bound by the domain it is being
used in. Yes, the author was able to produce a market leading
application in an arcane language, but he was in a green field. There
weren't any competing technologies.

 

[ng2010]

First, I don't think JN needs a lawyer that you seem to want to be. That
said...

ng:
If you hate C so much why do you post here?

I can spar (since you and a few others seem to want to): you Clots
(pronounced sea-lots).
For those who like long, drawn-out, useless threads, you may want to
describe in detail how you reached the above (false) conclusion.

I wouldn't hold your beath though.

I don't have to wait until the bondo pops off of the sheet metal to
notice the lack of any solid metal. No one has to ever stop using it of
course and you old-timers won't and can't, because the language will
outlive you by a longshot. Sorry to sound like Mr. Grim, but it is true.
I'm not spending my "final" days here on a WWII submarine!

Most of the modern clever stuff
sits on top of a C implementation layer.

I already mentioned that there may be a place for something like that
(but probably not). At least YOU gave one answer to the question I posed
to JN (What is a good "domain" for C? or something like that I posed).
Good. You gave an answer, though without realizing it and without
realizing maybe that you just regurgitated an example I myself gave.

what platform are you reading this on? I bet there's a fair amount of
C in there

There's a lot of houses with asbestos in them where people still live.
And hey, it's a fire retardant! Surely by that "logic", all houses should
make use of asbestos. That is the point you just made.

template syntax...

That's OPTIONAL. You can't get away from the C-lineage elements. BIG, BIG
difference. If C was on trial, surely you be the prosecution's best
"friend"! The new languages are coming, I assure you. Then finally that
corpse that is C can be laid to rest (yes, it has been dead for a long
time). Your curt, shoot-from-the-hip "example" is NOT one.

I couldn't resist: this is quite fun. I find discussions like this
entertaining sometimes, and I do find that, though arduous, small gems
can still be found.

<snip>


you do?

I do what? Voodoo? Can you speak in complete sentences or just in C?

 

[ng2010]

This comment seems somewhat naive. Some design patterns work much
better in one programming paradigm than another, and different
languages are definitely different in how well they fit different
paradigms. For example, C is just fine for procedural programming,
maybe okay for object-oriented programming, somewhere between fair
and poor (depending on "how functional") for functional programming,
and generally awful for logic programming. If someone is content to
stick just with design patterns that work in procedural programming
or (not too emphatic) object-oriented programming, then these all can
be expressed in C (or most other widely used procedural languages).
If, however, one wants to use functional programming design patterns
or logic programming design patterns, then trying to express said
designs in C will be fraught with difficulties. Of course, in the
literal sense the last statement quoted above may be true --
understanding what makes a design work _is_ important no matter which
language will be used to implement the design. But choosing a good
design, as well as understanding what makes it work, is _not_
independent of language, because not all designs work in all
languages.

There are those who like "all the bells and whistles" and need them to
write the simplest of programs and those who like the basics and exploit
them to their fullest. In between, there are a few programmers, but most
lie toward one of those extremes. (At least, so I conjecture).

 

[Tim Rentsch]

There are those who like "all the bells and whistles" and need them to
write the simplest of programs and those who like the basics and exploit
them to their fullest. In between, there are a few programmers, but most
lie toward one of those extremes. (At least, so I conjecture).

Hmmmm... which end would you put C++ at?

 

[Phil Carmody]

The new languages are coming, I assure you. Then finally that
corpse that is C can be laid to rest (yes, it has been dead for a long
time). Your curt, shoot-from-the-hip "example" is NOT one.

Ouch - you just bent my troll-detector's needle as it tried to
hit twelve.

One more bozo for the bin, I guess.

Phil

 

[bartc]

The new languages are coming, I assure you.

Which languages are these?

 

[Richard Bos]

Which languages are these?

Java and NewBASIC.

Richard