- Original Message -
From: K. K. Subramaniam subb...@gmail.com
To: fonc@vpri.org
Cc: BGB cr88...@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
On Wednesday 14 Jul 2010 9:25:11 am BGB wrote:
there is much emphasis on people understanding an entire system
On 14 July 2010 10:49, Antoine van Gelder anto...@g7.org.za wrote:
Questions such as how do we define a downward trajectory? or
which direction is simple in? or even how can we even possibly hope
to measure simple?!
There is nothing hard about simplification per se. I don't think I've
made a
On 14 July 2010 00:01, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com wrote:
[1] http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~kjt/techreps/pdf/TR141.pdf FOR FUN: Where is
the bug here? The authors claim they are measuring the *economic*
expressiveness of languages.
I think I don't really follow you here (you seem in a
Well, you're right. The way I phrased it isn't at all proper. I meant the
authors were using economy of expression [1] as their metric. In
programming languages lingo, the phrase more expressive the authors use is
co-opting the meaning of expressive as defined by Felleisen's expressiveness
On 13/07/2010, at 10:29 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
The lack of scalability that I was talking about is where a system
becomes too much for any person to understand. Though lines of code is
very simplistic, Alan has compared code sizes of various projects with
different kinds of books in
of limited utility. so, some of this
is tradeoffs.
- Original Message -
From: Julian Leviston
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
On 13/07/2010, at 10:29 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
The lack
On 14/07/2010, at 1:55 PM, BGB wrote:
yes.
there is much emphasis on people understanding an entire system, whereas
often a programmer does not need to have such comprehensive understanding.
in a large codebase, for example, parts of the project will come into view as
one works on
Steve Dekorte wrote on Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:22:29 -0700
On 2010-07-10, at 12:25 AM, Hans-Martin Mosner wrote:
For quite some time I've been pondering the duality of the class/instance
and
method/context relations. In some sense, a context is an object created by
instantiating its method,
Steve,
Something pointed out to me by Microsoft Silverlight -and- Expression Blend
architect John Gossman [1] is that eventually these issues get resolved, but
the process is pretty ugly. He linked this book as a reference point
Am 10.07.2010 01:24, schrieb Alan Kay:
... a hobby was finding much more compact ways to do Lisp (it can
really be shrunk down from John's version) and amounts really to
being able to say what it means to send a message from one context to
another
For quite some time I've been
On 2010-07-10, at 12:25 AM, Hans-Martin Mosner wrote:
For quite some time I've been pondering the duality of the class/instance and
method/context relations. In some sense, a context is an object created by
instantiating its method, much like a normal object is instantiated from its
Or multi-methods / multiple dispatch?
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Steve Dekorte st...@dekorte.com wrote:
It seems as if each computing culture fails to establish a measure for it's
own goals which leaves it with no means of critically analyzing it's
assumptions resulting in the technical
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
...seeing if very compact runable maths could be invented and built to
model...
Isn't this a good definition of Lisp?
Denis
vit esse estrany ☣
spir.wikidot.com
On 2010-07-08, at 9:21 PM, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Thanks for the response. That kind of sounds like the goal is fewer lines of
code (and presumably less labor) per unit of function (increasing
productivity). Is that correct?
Well, I don't speak for Alan, but I have to think it's a bit more
On 2010-07-09, at 12:56 AM, Colin Putney wrote:
On 2010-07-08, at 9:21 PM, Steve Dekorte wrote:
Thanks for the response. That kind of sounds like the goal is fewer lines of
code (and presumably less labor) per unit of function (increasing
productivity). Is that correct?
Well, I don't
somewhere else which breaks as a
result, this is a problem...).
but, there are many factors involved.
or such...
- Original Message -
From: Colin Putney cput...@wiresong.ca
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
for example, is a lot of this added code because:
the programmer has little idea what he was doing, and so just wildly
copy-pasted everywhere and made a big mess?...
has lots of code which is actually beneficial, such as doing error
checking and building abstractions.
similarly, is a
From: fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] On Behalf Of
David Leibs
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:33 PM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
It isn't that the programmer has little idea of what he is doing. Things
just take time to be transformed
Just to be clear,
The foremost experts and definitive source on software metrics -- Fenton and
Pfleeger [1] -- do not really support SLOC/day/programmer as a good metric
for productivity. It seems to me (from hearing reports by others) that most
people do not actually read books on metrics and
I am somewhat dyslexic and I don't always read things in the right
order so I read
SLOC/day/programmer
as
SHLOCK/day/programmer
it fits in a negative metric kinda way. Maybe it is a meme we should
unleash on our overlings.
-djl
On Jul 9, 2010, at 12:16 PM, John Zabroski
9, 2010 10:33:04 AM
*Subject:* Re: [fonc] goals
for example, is a lot of this added code because:
the programmer has little idea what he was doing, and so just wildly
copy-pasted everywhere and made a big mess?...
has lots of code which is actually beneficial, such as doing error checking
to send a message from one context to another
Cheers,
Alan
From: John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 2:48:27 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
Just wondering... when did that metaphor get
...@gmail.com
*To:* Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Fri, July 9, 2010 2:48:27 PM
*Subject:* Re: [fonc] goals
Just wondering... when did that metaphor get started at VPRI? The first
time I had heart you reference the t-shirt metaphor was October 2009 [1]. I
remember joking about
Max,
You mention software engineering management which reminds me of Tom Gilb's
book Principles of Software Engineering Management which is still a
favorite of mine despite that he replaced it with his more recent
Competitive Engineering. He begins any management exercise by defining six
to ten
(pardon the top-post)
granted, I probably don't speak for others here, who may have differing
opinions, I just speak for myself...
I am not formally involved with the project in question here, but work on
some of my own stuff in a similar domain (VM and compiler technology).
well, that is
I would imagine that the goals align with the task of augmenting human
intellect, to borrow Engelbart's phrase.
The STEPS project, in particular, seems concerned with compact
representations that approach the entropies of the systems being
simulated. Computing, to me, anyway, is very closely
I personally do not believe technology actually improves lives. Usually, it
is the opposite. Technology creates instant gratification and addiction to
it thereof, and the primary reason we are so addicted to technology is
because we have become so empty inside.
For me, new computing is about
@vpri.org
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 8:44:05 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
I personally do not believe technology actually improves lives. Usually, it is
the opposite. Technology creates instant gratification and addiction to it
thereof, and the primary reason we are so addicted to technology
I think Ryan has best articulated what it's all about for me anyway:
regaining control of our technology. Simplicity and clarity are, to some
extent, their own imperative. That's nothing new: Occam's Razor has long
been the dominant aesthetic in mathematics and the natural sciences at
least. In a
Alan Kay wrote:
McLuhan: We become what we behold.
We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are. - Anais Nin
(just to add some recursive futility to the mix)
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html
___
fonc mailing list
- Original Message -
From: John Zabroski
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
I personally do not believe technology actually improves lives. Usually, it
is the opposite. Technology creates instant
Not to put down Anais Nin, but this saying is written in the Talmud
and attributed to Buddha (great minds)
Kim
On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Ryan Mitchley wrote:
Alan Kay wrote:
McLuhan: We become what we behold.
We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are. -
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:10:12 -0700
Max OrHai max.or...@gmail.com wrote:
A computer is a necessary tool for engaging with the modern world
of human knowledge and culture. A truly personal computer should be fully
understandable and extensible, inside and out, by its individual users,
without
On 08 Jul 2010, at 10:34 , Steve Dekorte wrote:
What do the folks here see as the goals of new computing?
Is it to find ways to use technology to help people be more productive?
Is it more about education? Is it about maximizing MIPS/Watt? Something else
entirely?
My impression (which
Actually, Nin got her quote from the Talmud
From: Ryan Mitchley r...@peralex.com
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 9:40:45 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
Alan Kay wrote:
McLuhan: We become what we behold.
We don't
- Original Message -
From: Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
On 09/07/2010, at 1:44 AM, John Zabroski wrote:
I personally do not believe technology actually improves
I agree with the whole mental masturbation thing. Unless something
is produced and actually increases productivity then it's been a waste
of time. Frankly, I don't see anything substantial every coming out
of this project. It's just an academic exercise. Sorry for the
harshness.
On Thu, Jul
On 8 July 2010 17:40, BGB cr88...@hotmail.com wrote:
however, morals, ... would seem to be degraded in industrialized nations
(note the widespread prevelance of promiscuity, gays, gangs and violence,
...), so this may be a cost associated with industrialization (although
there is not any
People, I really think this isn't the right mailing list for this kind of
discussion.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:11 PM, chris mills chrmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2010 17:40, BGB cr88...@hotmail.com wrote:
however, morals, ... would seem to be degraded in industrialized nations
(note
Agreed. Apologies folks, it was a knee jerk reaction to a statement I found
offensive.
ChrisM
On 8 July 2010 19:17, Alex Abate Biral abatebi...@gmail.com wrote:
People, I really think this isn't the right mailing list for this kind of
discussion.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:11 PM, chris mills
I understand (and I hope the other people in this list do so too), but I
really think that there should be a separate list for arguing about the
project's philosophy (which is as important, if not more, as this list).
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:20 PM, chris mills chrmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed.
@vpri.org
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
It's been said that each generation thinks that it invented sex.
Could the same be said of depression?
On 2010-07-08, at 08:44 AM, John Zabroski wrote:
I personally do not believe technology actually improves lives
Once a project gets going it usually winds up with a few more goals than those
that got it started -- partly because the individual researchers bring their
own
perspectives to the mix.
But the original goals of STEPS were pretty simple and longstanding. They came
from thinking that the size
be destined for the dustbin
of pointless ideas, FWIW...).
or such...
- Original Message -
From: Alan Kay
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
Once a project gets going it usually winds up with a few more goals
Thanks for the response. That kind of sounds like the goal is fewer lines of
code (and presumably less labor) per unit of function (increasing
productivity). Is that correct?
On 2010-07-08, at 06:01 PM, Alan Kay wrote:
Once a project gets going it usually winds up with a few more goals than
On Dec 9, 2007 4:39 AM, Damien Pollet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
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
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.
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
On Dec 7, 2007, at 14:27 , Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
Hi Bert,
On Dec 6, 2007 9:45 PM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007, at 21:28 , Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
I think my greatest misconception is about the eToys-like language.
Will it be a full-fledged general-purpose
On 06/12/2007, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want C. I can use that already. I want a language that is much
more productive (that 20K lines thing, please! :), but with a nice and
math-like syntax for math operations and an overall simple syntax that
doesn't add
On Dec 6, 2007 1:14 AM, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are you building two unpopular languages on top of each other? Why
not just pick Lisp syntax for the foundation and then build a popular
syntax on top of that?
Why are you so concerned about popularity? If this concept
On Dec 6, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 1:48 AM, Joshua Gargus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it correct that we'll have a Lisp-like syntax at the lowest level
and a Smalltalk-like syntax above (with some syntax sugar like in
eToys?)?
(Leaving aside whether eToys
On Dec 6, 2007 6:54 PM, Joshua Gargus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In which language will the whole system be implemented such that it'll
only be about 20K lines?
It will be implemented in a variety of domain-specific languages. For
example, the code for networking, graphics, and defining new
Hi,
On Nov 28, 2007 12:10 AM, Ian Piumarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
? attract many mainstream programmers
No. Conducive to creating systems/languages (standard or otherwise)
that will attract the mainstream: YES!
I think this is where I have the biggest problems understanding what
you're
an intermediate step which will eventually be
superceded?)
Barry Silverman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian
Piumarta
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:11 PM
To: VPRI Fonc
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
On Nov 23, 2007, at 5:04
How about a recursive acronym: *S*HINOLA *H*eroically *I*mplements an *N*ew
*O*bject *L*ambda *A*rchitecture
-Mark
On Nov 28, 2007 1:03 AM, Ryan Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 20:17 , Dan Ingalls wrote:
PS: COLA, LOLA, , etc. -- these are all fine -- but before anyone
ALSO (abstraction/lambda/silicium/objects)
On 29/11/2007, Damien Pollet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what about MU ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29
is it object or lambda ?
is it a compiler or an interpret ?
math or smalltalk precedence ?
;-)
On 28/11/2007, Mark Friedman
On Nov 23, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
wait for Ian to make an official statement.
Can I make an officious statement instead? ;)
What are the goals for the programming language you are creating?
For the language:
- minimum 'default' syntax[1] and semantics[1] to satisfy
Hello,
As far as I understand the goals for the language are:
I believe that there may not be the language but the system and
languages.
* increased productivity (20K lines of code)
Increased productivity, I think, is not a real goal. Mathematical
expressions for describing physics
66 matches
Mail list logo
