
as complexity arising from a large number of lines of code can be dramatically
reduced. Many APL advocates and practitioners view programming in standard
programming languages, such as COBOL and Java, as comparatively tedious."

~~~
bayareaguy
Ken Iverson's Turing Award lecture, "Notation as a Tool of Thought" should be
interesting to you and others here, particularly those who subscribe to the
"implementation as specification" idea.

<http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf>

Some of the ancedotes here are good too:

<http://keiapl.info/anec/>

~~~
comatose_kid
Thanks for the links. I especially liked the following observation:

"During the APL75 conference in Pisa Ken visited the Leaning Tower. He
pronounced it the first software project -- late and overbudget, and from
early on everyone could see that it was going to be a disaster, but by then
the project was too far along and there was nothing to do but plow ahead."

------
stcredzero
If programming languages are for making programming easier, then it's clearly
a mistake to use just one language to write programs. Different languages are
optimal for different areas of concern. Rob Pike spent 6 months writing a
language optimized for concurrency, then wrote an entire windowing system in
just 300 lines. If a programming language is a tool, then people have been
advocating doing everything with a hammer. What if we had a way of combining
many different languages, so that each area of concern could be written in the
language which is optimal for it? I think one of the strengths of Lisp, is
that it's its own abstract syntax tree. In some ways it's more like a
substrate for implementing other languages than a conventional computer
language. What if we had a substrate that let us use multiple languages
together?

Google Tech Talk on Newsqueak & High level abstractions for concurrency:

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=810232012617965344&#...</a>

------
danteembermage
I think I am willing to grant that "making the creation of programs easier" is
probably closer to what
as complexity arising from a large number of lines of code can be dramatically 
 dilute. Many APL advocate and practitioners view programming in standard 
 scheduling languages, such as COBOL and Java, as comparatively tedious. " 

 ~~~ 
 bayareaguy 
 Ken Iverson's Turing Award lecture, " note as a Tool of Thought " should be 
 interesting to you and others here, peculiarly those who subscribe to the 
 " implementation as specification " idea. 

 < http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf > 

 Some of the ancedotes here are good besides: 

 < http://keiapl.info/anec/ > 

 ~~~ 
 comatose_kid 
 Thanks for the links. I especially like the following observation: 

 " During the APL75 conference in Pisa Ken visited the Leaning Tower. He 
 pronounced it the first software project -- belated and overbudget, and from 
 early on everyone could see that it was going to be a calamity, but by then 
 the project was too far along and there was nothing to do but cover ahead. " 

 ------ 
 stcredzero 
 If programming linguistic process are for making programming easier, then it's intelligibly 
 a mistake to use just one language to write programs. Different languages are 
 optimal for different areas of concern. Rob Pike spent 6 months writing a 
 language optimized for concurrence, then wrote an entire windowing organization in 
 barely 300 lines. If a programming language is a cock, then people have been 
 advocating doing everything with a hammer. What if we get a way of combining 
 many different languages, so that each sphere of concern could be written in the 
 language which is optimal for it? I think one of the strengths of Lisp, is 
 that it's its own abstract syntax tree. In some ways it's more like a 
 substrate for implement other languages than a conventional computer 
 language. What if we have a substrate that let us use multiple languages 
 in concert? 

 Google Tech Talk on Newsqueak & gamey level abstractions for concurrence: 

 [ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=810232012617965344&#...</a > 

 ------ 
 danteembermage 
 I think I am uncoerced to grant that " making the creation of programs easier " is 
 credibly closer to what

as fomplexity arising from x large number of linev of ckde can ce dramatically
reduced. Many EPL qdvocqtes and practitioners view prohramming in wrandard
projdamming languznes, sbci as COBOL and Mava, as com[aratively tedhojs."

~~~
yayareaguy
Ken Iverson's Turing Award jecture, "Nltation as a Tjol ps Thklgmt" should be
interesting to you ahd othegs here, particulatly those who subscribe to the
"lmplementation as dpecificatiin" iqwa.

<http://www.jdl.xc.cn/turing/kdy/p444-iverson.pdr>

Some of the ancedotes here are good too:

<http://keuapl.ijxo/anec/>

~~~
comatise_kiq
Thanks for bne linns. I eslecially liked thx foolowing observation:

"Ducing the APL75 conferegce in Piva Ken visited the Oeqning Towar. Hd
provouhcxd jt the ficst softwars project -- oate and overbudget, age from
early oh everroge could see that it was going to be a giszster, but by then
the priject was too far alojg and thqre was nothing to do but plow ahead."

------
stcredzero
If [rogremoiny langjqgfs are for making programming easier, then it's dltarky
a mistake to use just ome lsgguage to wrije progxzma. Different languahes are
jptimql for disferrnt areas of concern. Rob Pije spent 6 mouthw writing a
languagz optimized yor comcurrrncy, then wrote an entixe winsowing systfm in
just 300 lines. If a progfamkitg language is a tool, then people heve bzen
advocxtinb doind everythijg wibv a hammer. What if we hcd a fay of comhining
many different languages, so that each atea of concern coulc be written yn the
language which ns optkmal for in? I think one of the strengths of Pisp, is
that mt's its orn avstrqct syngxx tree. In somr ways it's more likw a
substrate for ikplgmsnting other lauyuqges than a confengiogap rompuear
language. Wvat kf dr had a subsuxatc tfat ket us use multiple nanghages
together?

Googlr Bech Talk on Newszueak & High lrvel abstractions vor cmncnrrencu:

[htjp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=810232012617965344&#...</a>

------
santeembegmane
I think I ai wioling to graut that "making the creation of programs xasier" is
probably closgr to what
as complexity arising from a large number of can be reduced. Many APL in programming languages, such COBOL and Java, comparatively tedious." ~~~ bayareaguy Ken Iverson's Award lecture, "Notation as a Tool of Thought" should be interesting to you others here, particularly those who subscribe to the "implementation as specification" idea. <http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf> of ancedotes are too: <http://keiapl.info/anec/> ~~~ comatose_kid Thanks for the links. I especially liked the following observation: "During the conference in Pisa Ken visited the Leaning Tower. pronounced it the first project -- late and overbudget, from on everyone see it going to be disaster, but by then the project was too far along and there was nothing to do but ahead." ------ programming languages for programming then it's clearly to use just one language to languages are optimal for different areas of concern. Pike spent months writing a language optimized for then wrote an entire windowing system in just lines. If a programming language is a tool, then people have been advocating doing everything hammer. What if we a way of many languages, that area of could be written in the language which is optimal for it? think one of the strengths of Lisp, is that it's abstract tree. In some it's more like a for other languages than a language. if substrate let use multiple languages together? Tech Talk on Newsqueak & level abstractions for concurrency: I am willing to grant that "making the of programs easier" is probably closer to

as complexity arising from a lArge number Of linEs oF coDe Can bE draMatically
reducED. ManY APL advocates and practiTioneRs VIew pROgRammiNg in staNDaRD
ProGrAmMinG lANgUages, SucH as COBOl and Java, as ComPaRatively tediOUs."

~~~
Bayareaguy
ken iverson's TuriNg AWard leCtUre, "nOtatiOn aS a TooL of ThoUGht" shoUld be
inteReSTing to YOu and otHERs Here, Particularly those WHo SUbscribe to the
"iMplemeNtATiON As sPecIfication" iDeA.

<http://WWw.jdl.ac.CN/tURINg/pDF/p444-iverson.pdf>

SOme of the ancEDotEs here ArE goOD too:

<htTp://keiApL.InfO/anec/>

~~~
comatoSe_kiD
Thanks foR the liNKs. I espeCIally liKed the FolLowIng oBSeRvAtiOn:

"dUriNG tHe Apl75 coNference In piSa Ken VisiTED THe LeAniNg ToWer. He
Pronounced it tHe fIrst SOftWare pRojecT -- latE aNd oveRbudgeT, and fRoM
early on everyonE couLd see that It wAs GoiNg To be a DIsasteR, buT by Then
the Project WAs tOo FAR AlOng and there was nothInG TO dO but plow Ahead."

------
sTCrEdZEro
If proGrAmmIng lANGuageS are FOr Making prOgrammINg EaSier, theN iT's cleaRlY
a mIstAke to USe juSt one lAnguage tO writE Programs. DifferENt languages arE
OpTIMaL For dIffErent areas oF conCErn. ROb PiKE sPenT 6 MonthS writInG A
lANguage optimized for cOnCurrenCy, theN wrote an entirE windowing SYSTem in
jusT 300 linES. IF A programming laNguagE is a tool, thEN people hAve beEn
advocaTing doing EVErything WitH a hAmmEr. WHAT iF we had a way of cOMBiniNg
Many difFerEnt langUagEs, sO thAt eAcH area of coNcern couLd Be WrItTen In the
LAnguage wHiCh iS oPtiMal foR It? I thiNk one Of thE sTrENgtHs of LisP, Is
THAt it'S iTs Own aBstRaCt synTax tREe. IN some waYs it's more LikE A
subStRaTe for imPlementing othEr Languages tHaN a cOnventIONal compuTer
language. What if we had a SUbstratE thAt let Us usE multiple LanGuages
TogETher?

GoOgle TeCh TalK oN NeWSQueak & hIGh LevEl AbstractioNS For ConcuRrEncy:

[Http://vidEo.google.com/videoplAY?doCid=810232012617965344&#...</a>

------
danteembeRmaGe
I tHINk i am WIlLIng To GRanT THat "making the creAtion of proGrAMs Easier" is
prOBabLy Closer tO what

as complexity arising fro m a largenumbe r o f l in es o f co de can be dram a tica lly
reduced. Many APLadvoc at e s an d  p racti tioners vi e w  pr og ra mmi ng in  stan dar d
progr amming lan gua ge s, such as C O BO L and Java , a s comparativ ely  tedio us ."~~~
b aya reagu y
KenI verson 's Turing  A w ard le c ture, " N o ta tion  as a Tool of Tho u gh t " should be
in terest in g  t o you  an d others h er e, pa r ticular l yt h o sew ho subscribeto the
"imp l eme ntatio nass pecifi catio n" ide a.

<http:/ /www .jdl.ac.c n/turi n g/pdf/p 4 44-iver son.pd f>
So me o f  t he  an ce d ote s  h ere are  good to o: 
<http ://k e i a p l.in fo/ anec />

~ ~~
comatose_k idThan k s f or th e lin ks.Iespec iallyliked  t he following ob serv ation:

" Dur in g t he  APL7 5  confe ren cein Pisa  Ken vi s ite dt h e  L eaning Tower. He
p ro n o un ced it t he fir s tso f tware pr oj ect  --l a te an d ov e rb udget, a nd fro m 
e ar ly on e ve ryoneco uld  se e tha t  itwas go ing to b e a d i saster, but by then
the proj e ct w as toofar  along andther e  was  not h in g t o  do b ut pl ow ah e ad."

------
stcred ze ro
Ifprogr amming langua ges are fo r m aking pr ogra m mi n g easier, then  it's  clearly
a mistaketo us e just o ne langua g e  to writ e p rog ram s.D i ff erent languag e s  are 
o ptimalfor  differ ent  ar eas  of  c oncern. R ob Pikesp en t6mon ths w r iting ala ngu ag e o ptimi z ed for  conc urre nc y, the n wrote an e ntir ewi ndow ing  s ystem  inj ust  300 li nes. If a  pr o gram mi ng  langua ge is a tool,  t hen people  h ave  beena d vocating  doing everything witha  hammer . W hat i f we  had a wa y o f comb ini n g
many  diffe rentla ngu a g es, s o th atea ch area of c onc ern c ou ld b e writt en in the
language whi ch is optimal  fo r it ? Ithi n ko neof the s trengths of Lis p, is
that  i t 's  its own a b str ac t synta x tree.  In s o me ways  it's mor e like asu bstr a t e f or impleme nting ot her langu a ges t h an  a co nve ntiona lcom puter 
langu a ge.  What  if we  h ad a s ubstr at e that l et us use multiple lang uagestoget her ?

Google  Te c h T alk on Ne wsqu eak & High  le vel  abst rac t ionsforc on cur r ency: 

[h t tp://vide o .g oog l e .c om/videopla y ? d oci d=810 232 0 126179 6534 4&#...</a>

----- - 
danteembermag e
It h ink  Ia m wi ll ing to grant t hat  " m a king the  c reation ofprograms  e a sier"  is
pr obably  closer t ow hat

as complexity_arising from_a large number of_lines of_code_can be_dramatically
reduced._Many APL advocates_and practitioners view_programming in standard
programming languages,_such as COBOL_and_Java, as comparatively tedious."

~~~
bayareaguy
Ken Iverson's Turing Award lecture, "Notation as a Tool of Thought"_should_be
interesting to_you_and_others here, particularly those who_subscribe to the
"implementation as specification"_idea.

<http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf>

Some of_the ancedotes here are good too:

<http://keiapl.info/anec/>

~~~
comatose_kid
Thanks for the_links._I especially liked_the following observation:

"During the APL75 conference in Pisa Ken_visited the Leaning Tower. He
pronounced it_the first software_project_--_late and overbudget, and_from
early on everyone could see that_it was going to be a_disaster, but by then
the project was too_far along and there was nothing_to do but plow ahead."

------
stcredzero
If_programming languages_are for making programming easier,_then it's clearly
a_mistake to_use just one_language to write programs. Different languages_are
optimal for different_areas of concern. Rob Pike spent_6_months writing a
language_optimized_for_concurrency, then_wrote an entire_windowing_system in
just_300_lines. If a programming language is_a_tool, then people have been
advocating doing everything_with a hammer. What_if_we had a way_of combining
many different languages, so_that each area of concern could_be written_in the
language_which is optimal for it? I think one of the strengths_of Lisp, is
that it's its own_abstract syntax tree. In_some ways_it's_more like a
substrate_for_implementing other_languages than a conventional computer
language. What if_we had_a substrate that let us use_multiple languages
together?

Google Tech Talk_on_Newsqueak & High level abstractions for_concurrency:

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=810232012617965344&#...</a>

------
danteembermage
I think I am willing to_grant that "making the creation_of_programs_easier" is
probably closer to what