> ... what criteria should apply [to complexity] and why one ranks higher than another.
Don't have a chance to look up the source, but Dijkstra has a wonderful observation about every implementation of a solution in CS includes two kinds of complexity: that intrinsic to the problem, and that introduced by the tools you're using to express it in a way computers can interpret. While not a well defined measure, I think this is a powerful intuition. - Andrey Sent from my cell. Please forgive abbreviations and typos. On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Gerry J <[email protected]> wrote: > John, et al > I am interested in what you think are the better approach > alternatives to handle complexity and size (etc), what criteria > should apply and why one ranks higher than another. > For example, should a language support both actors and be model > driven? > Is a mix of type inference and explicit typing with operators (like > OCAML) better than extremely late binding, and for what? > Should there be a hierarchy of syntax compatible languages, with > different restrictions, say extremely late binding at the top, and > fully typed and OS or device driver oriented at the bottom? > (ie pick the right tool in the family, size of hand held screwdriver > up to exchangeable bits for a power tool). > Thanks for your interesting references and insights. > > Regards, > Gerry Jensen > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > ... what criteria should apply [to complexity] and why one ranks higher than another. Don't have a chance to look up the source, but Dijkstra has a wonderful observation about every implementation of a solution in CS includes two kinds of complexity: that intrinsic to the problem, and that introduced by the tools/lan - Andrey Sent from my cell. Please forgive abbreviations and typos. On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Gerry J <[email protected]> wrote: > John, et al > I am interested in what you think are the better approach > alternatives to handle complexity and size (etc), what criteria > should apply and why one ranks higher than another. > For example, should a language support both actors and be model > driven? > Is a mix of type inference and explicit typing with operators (like > OCAML) better than extremely late binding, and for what? > Should there be a hierarchy of syntax compatible languages, with > different restrictions, say extremely late binding at the top, and > fully typed and OS or device driver oriented at the bottom? > (ie pick the right tool in the family, size of hand held screwdriver > up to exchangeable bits for a power tool). > Thanks for your interesting references and insights. > > Regards, > Gerry Jensen > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
