Even if it were possible to have a last language, it would be double plus ungood.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Paul Homer <[email protected]> wrote: > Realistically, I think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem implies that there > can be no 'last' programming language (formal system). > > But I think it is possible for a fundamentally different paradigm make a > huge leap in our ability to build complex systems. My thinking from a couple > of years back: > > > http://theprogrammersparadox.blogspot.com/2009/04/end-of-coding-as-we-know-it.html > > Paul. > > --- On *Mon, 7/18/11, BGB <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: BGB <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [fonc] Last programming language > > To: "Fundamentals of New Computing" <[email protected]> > Received: Monday, July 18, 2011, 6:28 AM > > > On 7/18/2011 2:56 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > > Smells like Kool-Aide. I smell bullshit. Dude is selling a book tour or > something. Let's just pick the POS we have now and run with it? Seriously? > How many times has that gone well? > > Dude is on a book-tour or something. Let him have it. > > > for most people and most projects, advice like "just pick C or Java or C# > or similar" generally aligns fairly well with the path to highest likely > productivity (get code written and out the door to customers, ...). if it is > something common, then there is less likely to be slowdowns or similar due > to some of the development team members getting confused, or having "area of > responsibility" confusion or similar. > > the bigger question is what can be done which hasn't already been done? and > more so, why does it necessarily matter? and, if there is something great > waiting, how does one best go about finding and it and making productive use > of it? ... > > > one potentially overlooked issue in the video: > 40 years ago, threads and multiprocessor systems were not exactly common; > now they are pretty much everywhere, but the most common languages tend to > be fairly incompetent of effectively utilizing them. > > though not "fundamentally new", this is at least a relevant change. > > > for example, what is a "not crappy" way to go about writing code, say, for > a GPU?... > > maybe there are better answers than, say, "well, pretend you are running > loops over big arrays" (CUDA) and "well, just run C on the thing" (OpenCL). > > > IMO, I sort of like mailboxes and asynchronous and trans-thread > function/method calls, but these are relative novelties (vs the ever present > "lock a mutex or enter a critical section or similar" model). > > ... > > or such... > > > On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:31 AM, karl ramberg > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Hi > Here is a interesting video about programming languages > > http://skillsmatter.com/podcast/agile-testing/bobs-last-language > > Karl > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > -- Casey Ransberger
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
