"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gaby, | | On Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:17 PM you wrote: | > ... | > Bill Page writes: | > | | > | I have installed Icon on the axiom-developer.org server and it | > | seems like a nice neat little language ... but I am sure Tim | > | will say: "Oh horrors, yet another programming language!" :) | > | > And I will second him! | > | > [Note: I have written small programs in Icon, and enjoyed | > "Graphics Programming in Icon" which you can get almost for | > free if you in academia.] | > | | Sometimes I wonder how someone who does not really appreciate | diverse programming languages would ever be motivated to | become an Axiom developer ... although I would not expect | Axiom *users* to necessarily be so multilingual. ;)
I do not have an answer to your question. Different people function differently. But, if the question is directed to me, then the answer is "I do play with lots of programming languages, and fluent in quite a few of them, with totally different paradigms -- I would not be here, if it were otherwise". Now, if you ask me whether in a large project I would recommend that we use all of them, then my first order answer is NO! Maybe there is a confusion about appreciating diverse programming languages and appreciating the set of tools we should use to deliver a coherent, attractive, scalable, and maintainable project. I don't want my scarce resource (time) to be sunk in a black hole. When it comes to tenure, the number of languages one appreciates counts for exactly zero. Software *development* counts for zero -- even in the area of software. The number of papers count highly; grants are important. I don't want to write about people writing software. I would prefer to write about software, largely based on experience. For that, I prefer invest the "wasted time" in something that can make a difference; that people use. I see an opportunity in Axiom. I would hate it becomes a black hole where all sorts of languages get sunk into because of "diverse programming language appreciation." The reasons why we should add new tools to our tool bagage should be their effectiveness to solve specific problems we are facing, not just because we want to be diverse. There is something to be said for breath, there is also something to be said for depth. There must be a balance somewhere given the limited resources we have. | I think Icon was a worthy predecessor of the currently very | popular web scripting languages like perl and python that came | later but did a lot of the same things (not necessarily as | well ): You mean SNOBOL? :-) [ The whom I work for currently is a long term SNOBOL hacker; yet he invented a different language that will not be suitable for discussion here :-p And we do work in an environment where we highly appreciate diverse languages and paradigms. ] | | http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/index.htm | | Icon has venerable history rather similar to Axiom's, beginning | in 1977: Thanks; not mean to be rude -- but I'm an Icon hacker. I spent long time studying Icon. For example, I wanted to add generators (not co-routines) to C++; among other things I digested Icon's implementation. That was not too long ago. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
