The other side of that coin is burdening users with a bunch of new
terms to learn that don't link to existing human concepts and words.
Click to save the document is easier for a new user to grok than
Flarg to flep the floggle ;)
Seriously though, in the space of programming language design,
I disagree. We do our best. This is always the case.
The problem with language is ... there is no problem. The problem is with
people and their lack of awareness.
I agree that our best currently sucks, though.
Words aren't the things they refer to - they're just pointers. The only way to
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.netwrote:
What's your point?
I like my PLs to be point free, as much as possible. ;)
Regards,
Dave
--
bringing s-words to a pen fight
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Clinton Daniel clinton...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
The other side of that coin is burdening users with a bunch of new
terms to learn that don't link to existing human concepts and words.
Click to save the document is easier for a new user to grok than
Flarg to flep
But I wasn't asking you. :P
:)
On 08/05/2012, at 4:28 PM, David Barbour wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote:
What's your point?
I like my PLs to be point free, as much as possible. ;)
Regards,
Dave
--
bringing s-words to a pen
Naming poses no problem so long as you define things a bit. :P
Humans parsing documents without proper definitions are like coders trying to
read programming languages that have no comments
(pretty much all the source code I ever read unfortunately)
J
On 08/05/2012, at 4:36 PM, David Barbour
Sorry it wasn't obvious what I was saying there...
They're important because when they're tiny, it's very easy to learn them...
Julian
On 08/05/2012, at 8:45 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
This is why tiny languages (Alan calls them POLs, I believe:
problem-oriented-languages) are so
On May 8, 2012, at 2:56 AM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote:
Humans parsing documents without proper definitions are like coders trying to
read programming languages that have no comments
One of the under appreciated aspects of system like TeX with the ability to do
embedded
Natural languages are commonly much more ambiguous and you could say
fuzzy (as in fuzzy logic) than (currently popular) programming languages
and hence switching between those two has to cause some difficulties.
Example: I have been programming in Ruby for 7 years now, for 5 years
professionally,
Isn't this simply a description of your thought clearing process?
You think in English... not Ruby.
I'd actually hazard a guess and say that really, you think in a semi-verbal
semi-phyiscal pattern language, and not very well formed one, either. This is
the case for most people. This is why
By the way,
This paragraph from Graham's essay, and in fact, his constant reiteration of it
in most of his work, is perhaps the most under-rated idea that we have in the
programming industry. It's actually not just the programming industry... My
emphasis added:
You can magnify the effect of a
On 5/8/2012 2:56 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
Isn't this simply a description of your thought clearing process?
You think in English... not Ruby.
I'd actually hazard a guess and say that really, you think in a
semi-verbal semi-phyiscal pattern language, and not very well formed
one, either.
12 matches
Mail list logo
