Christoph Maier wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 18:10 -0700, Darren New wrote: >> James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >>> especially interesting is a flash presentation >>> http://subtextual.org/demo1.html >> I saw this same flash presentation with the same examples years ago. >> It's not really obvious it's any easier than the normal definition of >> factorial or whatever. How would you handle database, 3D graphics, etc? >> >> There's another language called "boxer" which also loses the source (so >> to speak) and would seem to be better at functional programming, or at >> least teaching that. You might be able to dig something up on that, if >> you like these kinds of languages. >> >>> I believe he's onto something big! >> If he is, he's doing a poor job of actually producing something with it. >> :-) It doesn't seem to be that far different from QBE. >> >> -- >> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST) >> I bet exercise equipment would be a lot more >> expensive if we had evolved from starfish. > > Beats me why one would want to obfuscate perfectly obvious abstract > concepts by unnecessarily specific examples, anyway. >
I didn't read it having any obfuscating effect. To the extent of the demo/presentation, I saw some real value in (for example) avoiding semantic meaning for labels. And the ability to build in test-cases seemed like a neat side-benefit. It certainly showed a different set of activities with respect to programming that would take some learning effort, but I was impressed that he made his point(s). Regarding "actually producing something", that may well be a valid obversation. He was, after all, called a /researcher/ in the article linking to the demo. :-) Darren- Boxer: are you referring to the /Berkeley Boxer Project/? I don't see too much about any other boxer programming language. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
