On 3/30/07, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Christopher Smith as of Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:57:16PM -0700:
> Don't get me wrong ... I *understand* the reasoning -- it's saying "I'm > out of my depth due to capability/time/interest, so I'll assume that > someone who has more talen/experience/interest than I is actually doing > the appropriate analysis and is making a better decision than I could." > > The problem is, this is not often the case. Stuff is done because it > seems like a good idea at the time, or because it was a challenge, or > it was fun, or it was drop-dead easy so why not? So, "it seems like a good idea at the time" I would agree with, and that is exactly in line with the reasoning I suggested. The "because it was a challenge or it was fun or it was drop-dead easy so why not?" are the kind of reasonings that leads to an unsuccessful language designer. Language design decisions along the lines of "I climbed it because it was hard but I knew I could do it" lead to hideously complex languages, with that complexity not providing enough benefit for people to adopt it.
Would you give us examples please?
"Doing it because it is fun" tends to result in "fun" languages that everyone talks about using, but rarely does for practical work.
Again examples would be useful.
"Drop-dead easy so why not?" tends to result in languages without clear design principles, lots of unintended consequences, etc.
I begin to feel like a broken record, but "Would you give us examples, please."
> Even very smart, very good, very talented people make mistakes, or > pursue "unwise" paths. Not everything pans out. Absolutely true. However, to be successful with language design, you pretty much have to have a clear vision as to why you are doing what you are doing (said vision may be wrong).
What language would you suggest meets this "clear vision" criteria. Do you consider the vision right or worng?
A modern desktop can have independent CPU's, an independent GPU, an independent physics processor, and independent sound processor, not to mention all kinds of ASIC's here and there doing DMA transfers and God knows what else. Yeah, we use clocks to synchronize them, but that is kind of a Von Neumann band aid on an increasingly asynchronous system.
I agree. When the wine is ready send a message. But the trick is to serve the entire meal at the right time. Desert than main course defines another culture. Not wrong but not mine. BobLQ PS. I am still wating ofr jhriv to respond to my query On 3/29/07, John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that technological solutions to social problems Don't Work.
You have said this several times. I suspect you believe it. Do you have reasoning or data to offer to back up this belief? BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
