Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT

[Nathan Rice]

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:18 PM, alex23 <wuwei23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 3:37 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> We live in a world where the tools that are used are based on
>> tradition (read that as backwards compatibility if it makes you feel
>> better) and as a mechanism for deriving personal identity.  The world
>> is backwards and retarded in many, many ways, this problem is
>> interesting to me because it actually cuts across a much larger tract
>> than is immediately obvious.
>
> Do you produce commercial code in a team? Because going by your
> absolutist bullshit here, it certainly doesn't sound like it.

Think of me like the Wolf, the cleaner in pulp fiction that Marcellis
Wallis calls in to take care of the mess when Jules accidentally blows
a kid's brains out in the back of a car.  I get called in when my
skills are needed, and when the mess has been handled and things are
back to normal I take my leave.

> When I join an organisation that requires language A as all of its
> systems are written in it, is that 'tradition' or 'personal identity'?
> How is 'compatibility' - either with existing systems or existing
> *developers* - a "backwards and retarded" approach to complex
> problems?

I don't care what people do related to legacy systems.  There will
always be a COBOL.  I do care about programmers that are too lazy to
learn, and would be happy to ignore the fact that programming is hard
for most people to learn, so they can continue not learning.  Those
programmers are scumbags.

Just don't let me hear you complaining because some syntax is not "C
like" enough for you.  Whenever I hear that I want to strangle the
self-serving 'tard that wrote it.  When I see people defending "C
like" syntax as optimal or somehow much more expressive, that makes me
doubly irritated.  These are the people who are selfishly defending
the status quo because they're invested.  If you're going to be
selfish and inconsiderate at least be honest about it, rather than
pretending that one of the earliest languages somehow got almost
everything right and should be the basis for new languages till the
end of time.  This goes for most of the ALGOL derived languages.  I
don't have a problem if you know your language well and are happy
using it, that's great.  Don't try to delude people that our modern
ALGOL derivatives are the best possible way to model knowledge
(including process knowledge) to a computer, because that is a lie.

> If I've chosen language A because some aspect of its syntax maps
> better onto my mind (or for _whatever_ reason that makes individuals
> prefer one language to another), and you've chosen language B: who
> gets to decide which is the 'superior' language, which is the 'better'
> mapping etc?

You should be able to live in your reality if you want, as long that
doesn't impinge on others.  Of course, if you disagree on basic
grammar, then I would have to ask you, do you disagree about English
grammar, or have you accepted it so that you can communicate with
people?  This is why I advocate following English grammar closely for
syntax - people have accepted it and don't make a big deal, and it is
the way we represent information already.

> You're arguing for a top-down centralised approach to language
> development that just will _never_ exist, simply because it cannot. If
> you don't accept that, I believe there's a fascinating fork called
> "Python 4000" where your ideas would be readily adopted.

You completely missed my point.  In fact, my argument is for a bottom
up approach, with a meeting point which is much closer than the
machine code which is currently used.  However you want to represent
it, the knowledge is the same, and that is what matters.  We need to
get past the idea of different, incompatible languages, and settle on
a common knowledge representation format that underlies all languages,
and is compatible.  If you want to make an alex23 DSL where up is down
and inside is upside down, go for it, just as long as it is
represented in a sensible set of semantic primes that I can transform
to whatever reality I want.