[PRL] Of course our programming language can do this

[Matthias Felleisen]

On Aug 2, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mitchell Wand wrote:

> Well, syntax may not be a polite topic, but that doesn't make it  
> unimportant.  Remember, we are talking about programming  
> **languages**.
>
> Languages, as Matthias well knows, are distinct from core calculi,  
> which can be ugly as sin, so long as they can express the key  
> meanings.  Languages are meant for *people* (sorry about the  
> asterisks) to write and to read.  If the meaning of a program is  
> disguised by layers of syntactic cruft, then it is hard to  
> understand, read, modify, or write
>
> Languages must be able to express key abstractions, but they must  
> also have usable syntax for doing so.   Otherwise you the in S K  
> and combinators as might well write.

Nah, see expressive power of PL.

I think you ribbed the context of my message. If Joel's essay is  
about the psychological and sociological impact of syntax, I missed  
the point. I truly think it's about "ideas of programming."

Otherwise I am actually with you. -- Matthias



>
> --Mitch
>
> PS:  Here is that last sentence, in a language with somewhat  
> clearer syntax:
>
> Ubothuberwubise yubou mubight ubas wubell wrubite ubin thube wubS  
> uband ubK cubombubinubatubors.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/2/06, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:Guys, I  
> don't think syntax is a polite topic among PL researchers. If
> it doesn't demand a global transformation, it's okay.
>
> What does deserve consideration is what Joel is preaching: getting to
> know FP, for example, helps you exploit the full power of Java.
>
> -- Matthias
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PRL mailing list
> PRL at lists.ccs.neu.edu
> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/prl
>