Alan,
I'm thinking more deeply about computers and language and have realized that,
after programming for 15 years, I still have no idea what I'm talking about :)
After reading many of the LISP suggestions (thanks), the primary features seem
to me to be:
parsimony (again you got to me and I
Five bucks says the species doesn't know what it's talking about yet.
Admitting this is probably very healthy... it's a good way to avoid thinking
that the ideas we have now are perfect or complete, an attitude I see a lot
in industry.
My favorite is the this-language-is-better-than-that-one.
On 8/19/2011 4:11 PM, David Barbour wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, DeNigris Seans...@clipperadams.com wrote:
After reading many of the LISP suggestions (thanks), the primary features seem
to me to be:
I'm not sure where, if at all, security comes in
Security was, quite
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:33 PM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
'Messaging' is a problem child of its own. It forces us to write
highly stateful applications, in order to coordinate or orchestrate
multiple devices. Resulting applications are neither resilient nor
robust: a missed, lost,
On 8/19/2011 7:41 PM, David Barbour wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:33 PM, BGBcr88...@gmail.com wrote:
'Messaging' is a problem child of its own. It forces us to write
highly stateful applications, in order to coordinate or orchestrate
multiple devices. Resulting applications are neither
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote:
if a message is equivalent to a method call, then it is equivalent to a
method call...
Yes. But it's hard to make a point with a circular argument.
there are worse ways to do things than by passing messages
Certainly! We could
