Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support

All,


> John asked us to speculate what might have happened differently,
> not produce empirically verifiable theories :-)


http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2016/05/23/the-fall-of-rome-and-the-ascendancy-of-ego-and-bluster/


> You also mentioned combining static type checking with explicit


A language can contain strong typing, but these are useless unless
people actually use them:
http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2014/04/17/c-vs-ada-which-language-is-more-strongly-typed/


Some weak evidence that stronger typing saves some time.
My view is that the benefit happens over longer timescales (too long
for it to be cost effective to run an experiment):
http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2014/08/27/evidence-for-the-benefits-of-strong-typing-where-is-it/


> Re "empirical software engineering",


If anybody has any public data that I don't have, please let me know:
http://www.knosof.co.uk/ESEUR


> It is like introducing alchemy into the chemistry department:


I would say it's more akin to saying that chemistry papers need to
maximize the number of mathematical orgasm they contain and lets
ignore reality.


> let's forget all the theory and all the maths and just smush
> random chemicals together and see what happens!
> Yes, it's something new, and no, it's not a direction I favour.


http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2017/11/29/vanity-project-or-real-research/


> Modern popular languages are neither powerful nor easy to learn.


What evidence do you have for this?

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