With regard to your last point -- making POLs -- I don't think we are there
yet. It is most definitely a lot easier to make really powerful POLs fairly
quickly than it used to be, but we still don't have a nice methodology and
tools to automatically supply the IDE, debuggers, etc. that need to be there
for industrial-strength use.
Cheers,
Alan
>________________________________
> From: Loup Vaillant <l...@loup-vaillant.fr>
>To: fonc@vpri.org
>Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA
>
>Alan Kay wrote:
>> Hi Loup
>>
>> Very good question -- and tell your Boss he should support you!
>
>Cool, thank you for your support.
>
>
>> […] One general argument is
>> that "non-machine-code" languages are POLs of a weak sort, but are more
>> effective than writing machine code for most problems. (This was quite
>> controversial 50 years ago -- and lots of bosses forbade using any
>> higher level language.)
>
>I didn't thought about this historical perspective. I'll keep that in
>mind, thanks.
>
>
>> Companies (and programmers within) are rarely rewarded for saving costs
>> over the real lifetime of a piece of software […]
>
>I think my company is. We make custom software, and most of the time
>also get to maintain it. Of course, we charge for both. So, when we
>manage to keep the maintenance cheap (less bugs, simpler code…), we win.
>
>However, we barely acknowledge it: much code I see is a technical debt
>waiting to be paid, because the original implementer wasn't given the
>time to do even a simple cleanup.
>
>
>> An argument that resonates with some bosses is the "debuggable
>> requirements/specifications -> ship the prototype and improve it" whose
>> benefits show up early on.
>
>But of course. I should have thought about it, thanks.
>
>
>> […] one of the most important POLs to be worked on are
>> the ones that are for making POLs quickly.
>
>This why I am totally thrilled by Ometa and Maru. I use them to point
>out that programming languages can be much cheaper to implement than
>most think they are. It is difficult however to get past the idea that
>implementing a language (even a small, specialized one) is by default a
>huge undertaking.
>
>Cheers,
>Loup.
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>fonc@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
