On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:04 PM, daly <d...@axiom-developer.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 20:14 -0400, Adam Richardson wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Brian Hurt <bhur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What's this awk-a-mel he speaks of? Ocaml, pronounced >> oh-camel, I >> know very well, but I've never heard of this awk-a-mel. :-) >> >> Seriously, his pronunciation of "ocaml" highlights, I think, >> the core >> problem of his talk. There has been significant development >> in >> languages, just not in the popular languages. It's been over >> there in >> the "fringe" languages. >> >> >> I will confess that as I listened to the presentation (when I got the >> email with Tim's link, I just started the video while I was working on >> some drudgery), I felt like he missed some of the language features >> promoted in functional languages. >> >> >> He worded functional programming contributions in terms of advancing >> the idea of limiting/protecting variable assignment (immutability), >> and to me, that's missing the points of first class functions (which, >> in light of what he says OOP languages brought to the table, actually >> provided protected function pointers through purely functional >> languages without any need for OOP) and an emphasis on function purity >> and limiting the scope of unpure functions (to me, this goes beyond >> merely protecting assignment.) >> >> >> These omissions, coupled with the mispronunciations of functional >> programming language names, and the value placed on the last language >> being homoiconic (without much justification) had me wondering how >> much he actually has used languages such as OCaml or Haskell. > > Homoiconic representation is fundamentally important and lacking > in other languages. The programs == data idea is what makes the > macro facility work, allows dynamic program construction, compile > to core, etc. There is a story going around that McCarthy attended > a python talk where they made the claim that python IS a lisp-like > language. John pointed out that if it lacks homoiconicity it cannot > be a lisp. (I probably have the details wrong).
Perhaps the last 6 or 7 paragraphs to http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/ooh-ooh-my-turn-why-lisp.html? Jeff > > OCaml came from ML but the ideas came before either one. Lisp supported > functional programming long before either language. I believe the point > Robert was trying to make was that very few languages have increased our > stock of fundamental ideas. OCaml is not one of them. > > Indeed languages (like Spad) built on lisp STILL support ideas I have > not seen anywhere else (e.g. dispatching on the return type as well as > the argument types). > > Robert suggests that we need to develop a standard language. > Good luck with that. > > I participated in the reviews of the X3J13 Common Lisp standard > (behind the scenes by passing on my comments and markups to people who > had the proposal directly). Trying to define a "standard programming > language" would be the ultimate language war. It has been tried several > times before (PL/I included everything and C++0xxxxx is trying hard to > include everything). > > At best I believe we will muddle along and I will continue to be > rejected during job interviews for working in python 2.7 and not > "knowing" python 3.0. Forty years of lisp programming just makes > me too old to hire for any "real" programming job. Heck, I probably > don't know the difference between OCaml and awk-a-mel so I clearly > cannot program. :-) > > >> >> >> I don't need to know how many digits somebody can recite Pi to, but I >> would like to know how his experience with awk-a-mel lead him to >> believe that functional programming comes down to protecting variable >> assignment :) >> >> >> That all said, if Clojure is the seed for the last language, I'd be a >> happy man. > > I believe that Robert missed the fundamental point though. It is > NOT just the space of ideas that makes lisp "the right language". > Another key reason is "impedance matching". (An impedance mismatch > is when you hook a soda straw to a firehose). > > Programs exist to bridge the gap between the idea domain and the > machine domain. Some languages are close to the machine, like assembler, > so you have to "carry your idea" all the way to the machine. Some > languages are close to the problem (e.g. Mathematica) but the compiler > has to cross the gap to the machine. This is where the ability to > create domain-specific languages in the same syntax matters. > > Lisp is the only language I know that allows you to work across the > whole spectrum in a single language. It is possible to say > (integrate (car x)) > which takes the 0 displacement off the x pointer (machine) and then > does a mathematical integration routine (problem) and does it all with > the same syntax and semantics. > > I wouldn't worry that we will stop creating new languages. > We have yet to explore the space of unicode replacements for the > semi-colon (although Fortress is starting). Kanji semi-colons. > I can't wait! > > Tim Daly > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
