What's the Most Concise, Human-Understandable Practical Language?

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

139 Replies - 5767 Views - Last Post: 19 May 2020 - 05:32 AM

#136 macosxnerd101   User is online

  • Games, Graphs, and Auctions
  • member icon




Reputation: 12769
  • View blog
  • Posts: 45,951
  • Joined: 27-December 08

Re: What's the Most Concise, Human-Understandable Practical Language?

Posted 18 May 2020 - 11:34 AM

So I think we are narrowing in on the purpose of this thread. You want an overlay to JS that is more intuitive for you. Thatís all well and good.

When designing a programming language, the intent is that it works well for more than just one person. At the very least, your arguments have failed to be convincing to really anyone outside of yourself who has participated on this thread. It may also be possible (and actually the case, based on where Iím sitting) that other folks have raised legitimate and significant issues with the design (or lack thereof).

Iím with jon.kiparsky and andrewsw in that I am tapping out. As Jon pointed out, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and your abilities. There is a clear and distinct difference between ego and taking pride in oneís work.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#137 johnywhy   User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: -4
  • View blog
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 07-April 20

Re: What's the Most Concise, Human-Understandable Practical Language?

Posted 18 May 2020 - 12:20 PM

View Postmacosxnerd101, on 18 May 2020 - 06:34 PM, said:

So I think we are narrowing in on the purpose of this thread. You want an overlay to JS that is more intuitive for you. Thatís all well and good.

That was established early on.


Quote

When designing a programming language, the intent is that it works well for more than just one person.

I started the thread asking for language recommendations. In ten pages of comments, i got two language recommendations.

So, i proposed a fantasy syntax that works for me. By designing for myself, i address pain points that some others may feel too. Will that syntax work for everyone? No, and that's ok.


Quote

At the very least, your arguments have failed to be convincing to really anyone... who has participated on this thread.

How do you know that?

i didn't start the thread to convince anyone of anything. Others have piped in to try and convince me of things, so i responded to them. Obviously, those people aren't going to be convinced by anything i say, because the whole reason they participated in the thread in the first place was to tell me i'm wrong. So your sample-set of people i haven't convinced are people who were predetermined by their personal agenda not to be convinced.


Quote

other folks have raised legitimate and significant issues with the design

Is my fantasy syntax flawless? No. As i've stated many times, i welcome critiques. That's how i can improve it. That doesn't mean i'm required to agree with every critique. I posted rebuttals, some of haven't been invalidated.

The main critique has been "i don't like that, and neither should you." Which isn't a legitimate critique.

There's no point designing a new syntax which is no different than existing syntax.


Quote

you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and your abilities.

Another member brought up the topic of my abilities, asking me to share my credentials. Imo, that wasn't appropriate, but i did anyway.

Confidence about my abilities: just the good ones. I also said i'm ignorant of computer science theory, and i'm a JS beginner.
Confidence about myself: no-- i make a lot of flubs in interpersonal communication.

But, let's stop talking about me-- let's talk about code. Criticising my personality isn't a relevant or legitimate critique of my views on syntax. It's just a personal attack.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#138 macosxnerd101   User is online

  • Games, Graphs, and Auctions
  • member icon




Reputation: 12769
  • View blog
  • Posts: 45,951
  • Joined: 27-December 08

Re: What's the Most Concise, Human-Understandable Practical Language?

Posted 18 May 2020 - 01:47 PM

View Postjohnywhy, on 17 May 2020 - 11:23 PM, said:

I hope this example demonstrates that syntax design is an art unto itself, and i excel at it.


Anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda. Right. Yet the above is what you are posting...

I'm out at this point. I wish you the best of luck with your project.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#139 johnywhy   User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: -4
  • View blog
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 07-April 20

Re: What's the Most Concise, Human-Understandable Practical Language?

Posted 18 May 2020 - 02:05 PM

i have a lot of respect for people who have skills and knowledge that i lack. Ge0, for example.

i feel a bit insecure around all you wizards. That's why i mentioned i think i'm good at syntax. Cuz you're all so expert at things i know nothing about.

I'm not better than anyone.

by "agenda" i just meant a strongly pre-formed opinion.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#140 ge∅   User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover

Reputation: 318
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,335
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Re: What's the Most Concise, Human-Understandable Practical Language?

Posted 19 May 2020 - 05:32 AM

I was genuinely interested in this thread. Going through it is costly in terms of time and focus, so the fact that people did despite their discomfort is proof they were interested as well or at least quite intrigued. It is a pity that such interest takes the shape of a dogpile but I think no one is to blame for this. Being alone to defend a controversial opinion and replying to every criticism while keeping your cool is very very hard and we should acknowledge that.

A property of the proposed protolanguage that I like is that is seems to be saying "everything is structure". There is only little difference between the shape of a function with a conditional and the shape of an object. If it worked it could mean they are fundamentally similar and this kind of abstraction is very powerful. If it works.

It reminds me of lambda calculus and Church notation. The big difference is that I trust Church when he defines numbers, true and false, etc. in terms of functions because I know it is mathematically correct, it's included in category theory and it relies on the work of other mathematicians like Peano.

Here the structures emerge as a side effect of removing things, not as a result of modelling what a function or an object fundamentally is. There is no proof it can work. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes a claim but what happened in this thread is that we had to prove that the proposed syntax didn't work based on narrow examples, and no vocabulary or abstraction was proposed to refer to the language, which made this task difficult.

I value brevity because I have trouble focussing in general, I am even reluctant to use strongly statically typed languages simply because I can't stand having distracting bits of information mangled with my code, but I think code reusability and composition of functions is a more powerful way of being concise than a light syntax. I also want to be able to predict easily what my code is going to do and I don't think the proposed rules for parsing the language help with that. It's very concise but it does not seem to be so much more declarative or higher level.

I just felt like writing a conclusion as I won't be participating any longer either.

This post has been edited by ge∅: 19 May 2020 - 05:35 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 3
  • +
  • -

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10