Re: Have we reached the asymptotic plateau of innovation in programming la

BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:


(snip)


> but, I think the issue mostly is that both "innovation" and "pure
> research" are often over-rated, and what is needed at this point may not
> be the creation of fundamentally new (or even entirely consistent)
> languages, but rather refinement, integration, and adaptation to new
> domains.


It seems to me that this is a big reason why we have the different
languages that we do, and why we will never converge onto only one.


Different needs are better met, in some cases, with different ways of
expressing those needs.


(snip on closures)


> so, better I think is trying to invest effort in creating "solid"
> languages which can effectively integrate much of what exists and seems
> to work well in-general, even at the cost of many of the more
> academically inclined are liable to make accusations of "blub" at such
> things (mostly due to things like syntactic and semantic similarity with
> mainstream languages).


PL/I, the original all-in-one language, is still used, but much less
often than some others. Among its goals, was to replace Fortran.


Now, with Fortran 2003 and Fortran 2008, a large fraction of the PL/I
features have been included, and more.


(snip)
> I also tend to see needless minimalism as, well, needless. simpler
> syntax doesn't mean a simpler or easier to use language, and more so
> doesn't mean a simpler implementation.


That seems, to me, hard to say. Too many features make a language too
hard to remember, requiring more reference to documentation while
programming. But also, as you indicate, needless minimalism doesn't
help. It can make it harder to do some simple operations.


> some people also make accusations of "keeping every onion", but as I
> see it, keeping common syntax and features by no means implies
> that one slavishly follows every possible rule.


PL/I included many features from Fortran, COBOL, and ALGOL, but
overall kept a nice, consistent, usage. Very few of what seem to be
arbitrary restrictions.


Fortran, on the other hand, even as it has evolved has kept many
restrictions that seem strange.


(snip)


> but, many people apparently see a C-family syntax and automatically
> judge it negatively as a result, whereas I happen to feel that the
> syntax works fairly well and personally see no "obviously better"
> solution (either functionally or aesthetically).


Well, reserved words do make it hard to extend a language and
stay compatible with older programs.


(snip)


-- glen

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.