Re: [fonc] goals
On Dec 8, 2007 3:05 PM, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not what we were talking about. You claimed that we'd need *less* developers with a better language, but today we have more than ever. How can you explain that? We do have more then ever, but not of the same kind. Very few of today's programmers will be applicable to tomorrow's programming environment. Though we will probably have more programmers total. Just tell me, why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to advance? Instead, why do languages like Python and Ruby make people advance? I'd really like to know how you explain that. Here I'm not sure what you're talking about, and I'm probably not the only one. In what ways did Python and Ruby advance or make people advance? Ruby's claim to fame is basically a web framework, yet both Lisp and Smalltalk both have more advanced web frameworks. History is pretty clear if you care to look: Lisp and Smalltalk aren't less popular because of syntax, they both existing before C++ was popular or Java existed. They are less popular at the moment because of non-technical issues, like it normally is. I don't care if it has Lisp-like syntax or whatever, but many developers do care. Without them you'll have a hard time building a useful infrastructure and you'll face the same problems as the Reddit guys and anyone else who tries to run a company with an unpopular language. No companies, no developers. Anyone else like Paul Graham who got rich by doing just that? Yes it was, so please do choose your words a bit more careful in future. Are you kidding? Don't tell me how I should choose my words! I didn't tell you how to do anything, I asked you (note the word please) to choose your words a bit more careful as in, don't throw useless snipes in literally every email at things you appear to not even understand. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
On Dec 7, 2007 7:22 AM, Jason Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 9:34 PM, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your statement sounds like an assembler developer claiming that with C++'s productivity most programmers will become unnecessary. And most assembler programmers did, no? When an advancement comes along you adapt or move on somewhere else. That's not what we were talking about. You claimed that we'd need *less* developers with a better language, but today we have more than ever. How can you explain that? Does that language suddenly make you more creative by a factor of 10? No, probably not. Who will get great ideas for new concepts, then? I don't think a factor of 10 is so hard to hit when going from a restrictive language (e.g. Java, C++) to a flexible one. Again, you're changing topics. I was talking about creativity and ideas, not productivity. But the fact is, these (from both me and you) are simply opinions. When you say ugly and difficult to use there is an implicit for me in there. And so there is your answer, the future will be achieved by people who are capable of learning better languages then we have now. There are very few places where people incapable of advancing can stay relevant. Just tell me, why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to advance? Instead, why do languages like Python and Ruby make people advance? I'd really like to know how you explain that. What I care about is that a high-productivity language finally becomes popular, so we have a real infrastructure with enough developers, companies, and frameworks. I don't care if it has Lisp-like syntax or whatever, but many developers do care. Without them you'll have a hard time building a useful infrastructure and you'll face the same problems as the Reddit guys and anyone else who tries to run a company with an unpopular language. No companies, no developers. Anyway, if the language will be inspired by eToys and also (but not only? :) intended for children then I'm pretty sure its syntax will be more than acceptable, so it's pointless to start a flamewar. Yes it was, so please do choose your words a bit more careful in future. Are you kidding? Don't tell me how I should choose my words! Bye, Waldemar Kornewald ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
On Dec 8, 2007 5:28 PM, Jason Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2007 3:05 PM, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not what we were talking about. You claimed that we'd need *less* developers with a better language, but today we have more than ever. How can you explain that? We do have more then ever, but not of the same kind. Very few of today's programmers will be applicable to tomorrow's programming environment. Though we will probably have more programmers total. So, you're claiming that today's programmers are too stupid or ignorant for developing in tomorrow's programming environments? Do you feel so much superior? How miserable is that? Just tell me, why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to advance? Instead, why do languages like Python and Ruby make people advance? I'd really like to know how you explain that. Here I'm not sure what you're talking about, and I'm probably not the only one. In what ways did Python and Ruby advance or make people advance? Ruby's claim to fame is basically a web framework, yet both Lisp and Smalltalk both have more advanced web frameworks. I'll ask again: why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to advance? Why can an (according to you) inferior web framework based on a slow language with (at that time) small popularity have a much greater impact than those more advanced frameworks and languages? Can you explain that with more than just non-technical issues? I don't care if it has Lisp-like syntax or whatever, but many developers do care. Without them you'll have a hard time building a useful infrastructure and you'll face the same problems as the Reddit guys and anyone else who tries to run a company with an unpopular language. No companies, no developers. Anyone else like Paul Graham who got rich by doing just that? I admit, anyone else is exaggerated, but if you're using a niche language you have more problems finding developers and you're more likely to run into limitations like mediocre platform support or no frameworks that fit your needs. Popular languages don't have this disadvantage and their software range steadily improves. Yes it was, so please do choose your words a bit more careful in future. Are you kidding? Don't tell me how I should choose my words! I didn't tell you how to do anything, I asked you (note the word please) to choose your words a bit more careful as in, don't throw useless snipes in literally every email at things you appear to not even understand. So you understand it all? Then enlighten us. What I understand is that artificially making a language unpopular is stupid. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
On Dec 8, 2007 8:32 PM, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, you're claiming that today's programmers are too stupid or ignorant for developing in tomorrow's programming environments? Do you feel so much superior? How miserable is that? I've already explained my position on this. I don't see a point telling you anything since you apparently don't bother to read it. If you treat documentation this way it's small wonder that Lisp and Smalltalk (!!!) were so hard for you. I'll ask again: why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to advance? Why can an (according to you) inferior web framework based on a slow language with (at that time) small popularity have a much greater impact than those more advanced frameworks and languages? The places I have seen Lisp and/or Smalltalk used they have had a lot of impact (e.g. Viaweb, RawDog, my own company with a Smalltalk app that the company has wanted to decom for a decade now but no other languages we use can even provide limited functionality in the time the Smalltalk team is adding new features their clients need). The reason it hasn't had *more* impact? To be frank, largely due to people like yourself. Can you explain that with more than just non-technical issues? I can't but I wont, the information is there, all over the place. And you don't seem to read what I write anyway. So you understand it all? Then enlighten us. It all? What you appear not to understand is the languages you take pot shots at in every single mail. What I understand is that artificially making a language unpopular is stupid. Much better to tie one's self down with extra complexities just so people who have been trained in awful programming languages will feel like they don't have to learn something new so we can achieve the most important goal in all of computer science: being popular. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
On Dec 8, 2007 9:12 PM, Jason Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2007 8:32 PM, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, you're claiming that today's programmers are too stupid or ignorant for developing in tomorrow's programming environments? Do you feel so much superior? How miserable is that? I've already explained my position on this. I don't see a point telling you anything since you apparently don't bother to read it. If you treat documentation this way it's small wonder that Lisp and Smalltalk (!!!) were so hard for you. You're not even willing to suggest how to improve the situation. Wonderful, then we can finally close this thread and concentrate on more constructive contributions. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
The way I see it, this is an attempt to rethink, and certainly rebuild, (almost) everything from the ground up, because the incremental/evolutionary/not actually changing very much approach to computing just isn't doing much. Shoot for the stars and who knows what you might hit? I mean, imagine if someone today said he was going to devote a few years to writing a computer progam that typeset complicated mathematics (and text) as well or better than the best human experts? Never get funded... So, asking what FONC will find when it explores the unknown - indeed, when it's building the tools for the expedition into the unknown - is unlikely to get a clear answer. jqs ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] What might FONC be? Intensional Programming Video
Hi all, I've read a fair bit about Intensional Programming, but I'd never seen Microsoft's demo system working - until today. The video has a retro feel, like a future that never happened or the year 2001 in the rear-view mirror: Part 1 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=tSnnfUj1XCQ Part 2 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZZDwB4-DPXEfeature=related There are some interesting things here: Introducing new syntax / semantics as part of the system. Trivial switching of syntaxes / layout. Textual and visual representations. Code evolution by transformation. _A_ model of editing by transformation - I'm sure those are going to be contentious! One tangential idea I quite like is that of tidying up and moving on legacy code bases. They can parse the source extract low level 'intentions' and then reprocess those abstractions en mass to some higher level. Also interesting to note how much we sort of have right now in current refactoring editors. And the awful presentation - bless - is she a member of a yacht club?! Toby ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
On Dec 8, 2007 9:53 PM, John Q. Splittist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The way I see it, this is an attempt to rethink, and certainly rebuild, (almost) everything from the ground up, because the incremental/evolutionary/not actually changing very much approach to computing just isn't doing much. Shoot for the stars and who knows what you might hit? I fully agree and I, too, would like to rethink a few conventions (mostly the UI). I just want that this project results in a *successful* product, not a new niche. So, asking what FONC will find when it explores the unknown - indeed, when it's building the tools for the expedition into the unknown - is unlikely to get a clear answer. I unfortunately expected that some clearer direction would already exist. I'd like to thank everyone who helped me understand the current situation. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] What might FONC be? Intensional Programming Video
Intentsoft is supposed to release something soon. Of course, you need sophisticated IDE support for that. Toby Watson wrote: Hi all, I've read a fair bit about Intensional Programming, but I'd never seen Microsoft's demo system working - until today. The video has a retro feel, like a future that never happened or the year 2001 in the rear-view mirror: Part 1 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=tSnnfUj1XCQ Part 2 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZZDwB4-DPXEfeature=related There are some interesting things here: Introducing new syntax / semantics as part of the system. Trivial switching of syntaxes / layout. Textual and visual representations. Code evolution by transformation. _A_ model of editing by transformation - I'm sure those are going to be contentious! One tangential idea I quite like is that of tidying up and moving on legacy code bases. They can parse the source extract low level 'intentions' and then reprocess those abstractions en mass to some higher level. Also interesting to note how much we sort of have right now in current refactoring editors. And the awful presentation - bless - is she a member of a yacht club?! Toby ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
Waldemar Kornewald wrote: I unfortunately expected that some clearer direction would already exist. I'd like to thank everyone who helped me understand the current situation. G'day Waldemar: This thread has prompted me to re-read Ian's 'widespread unreasonable behavior' paper. I think that it does provide a clear direction for this project, though it may not be the direction that you want to do. At least, not yet. You're concerned about syntax and programmer productivity. FONC seeks to improve programmer productivity, which may be what attracted your attention, but syntax is a secondary consideration. Once the infrastructure is is sufficiently functional, you can have any syntax you want, as long as someone is willing to write the transformations to an abstract syntax tree that can be fed to the COLA tools. Initial syntaxes look likely to C99 and Smalltalk, but Python shouldn't be difficult with the work being done on the PyPy project. Their Python in Python framework already targets C, Java, JavaScript, Lisp, and LLVM. COLA should be quite feasible, as well. Regards, Steve ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] goals
On 09/12/2007, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fully agree and I, too, would like to rethink a few conventions (mostly the UI). I just want that this project results in a *successful* product, not a new niche. Getting out of the niche (or not getting in it in the first place) has more to do with PR than with technical merit. Else NeXT, the Canon Cat, or Smalltalk would be both alive and popular. For PR you want incremental changes and concrete applications, while for innovative stuff you want crazy ideas without bonds to the past, and time to crystallize them. I think both aspects can be addressed at the same time, but certainly not by the same people. -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://typo.cdlm.fasmz.org ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
