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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
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 :
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.
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
