To follow up on Matthias's thread: 2025: Companies are forced to install soundproofing when the voices of NL programmers in their 4'x4' cubicles bother their neighbors in the "social marketing" department
2035: A command reportedly issued by a POTUS "with a bad cold" to national SIRI causes the first ever worldwide internet shutdown 2045: Langbot creates code to search the past for old/new programming paradigms 2046: Skynet goes active On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]>wrote: > > 1983: Pascal doesn't have closures, so I built records once I understood > the concept. But -- and that is a HUGE but -- I didn't really understand > the concept of a closure until I had programmed in Scheme. In reality I > couldn't imagine programming with closures when my boss told me it was > possible and argued we could do it in Pascal. > > 1998: C programmers didn't know about objects until they worked in Java > for a while. I am sure, however, that they could have managed with structs > and function pointers. > > 2012: I am certain that Java-ists don't understand modules like MLers do. > > 2020: I also don't think Haskellians understand macros the way Racketeers > do. > > These programmers are just too lazy to immerse themselves in something > novel and truly learn. Now let's do some real work -- Matthias > > > > > > > On May 9, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Grant Rettke wrote: > > > Java doesn't have a nice module system but most people use IoC > > containers for the same thing. > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM, J. Ian Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The abstractions and protections an API can provide are entirely fueled > by the language its implementation (and its consumers) is written in, > however. Is this not the case? > >> -Ian > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Grant Rettke" <[email protected]> > >> To: "racket" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 3:42:06 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > >> Subject: [racket] The value of a language > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Hope this is on topic, if it is not a substantive contribution I > apologize. > >> > >> I just want to share a conversation from work. Bunch of experienced > >> developers who are all very thoughtful reached the conclusion that the > >> most important thing in a language choice is the APIs that come with > >> it. Basically talking through it, that is the thing that speeds up > >> work, and people can basically "think in any language they like" and > >> then "mentally compile it down" to whatever is the implementation > >> language. I generally agree in a corporate environment because you do > >> want save your customers time and therefore money and I have never > >> tried a non-mainstream language there such that I had real evidence > >> there is a more productive way to do things. > >> > >> This was the same day that I finally read about syntax/parse and was > >> thinking about how much nicer it would be to use that than the > >> plumbing work I had to do to get nice error reporting, so perhaps I > >> was more struck with their observation. It was just funny to hear > >> everybody keep saying "the language doesn't matter" because it is so > >> different than how I think, and how I think other lispers think, and > >> even PLT people in general. > >> > >> I thought this was a funny coincidence because I wanted to talk about > >> how great syntax/parse, and well I did talk to my one buddy about it > >> :). > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Grant > >> > >> -- > >> http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/ > >> ACM, AMA, COG, IEEE > >> ____________________ > >> Racket Users list: > >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/ > > ACM, AMA, COG, IEEE > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
