Lightweight Languages Workshop Webcast from MIT

Jonathan Edwards writes "The Lightweight Languages Workshop (LL4) will be webcast live from MIT tomorrow. Previous years have seen lively discussions between the proponents of languages like Perl, Python, and Scheme. Check out the program at the website."

Comments

Lightweight?

[spectral]

What makes a language 'lightweight' ? When I think of Perl, I don't immediately think a lightweight/simple language to learn. And then I look at the Program (Schedule) on the website and see that it says English is the most lightweight language of all, which doesn't make any sense to me unless you consider how much code it takes to get something accomplished as a feature of the language, so that since English and Perl don't require as much code to get difficult tasks completed, they're 'lightweight' languages?

That definition seems backwards. Can someone please enlighten me?

Re:Lightweight?

[evin]

At the LL1 page they define a lightweight language as one which is easy to learn.

Following the analogy of heavyweight vs lightweight threads, I initially thought it would be about languages which are either very small once compiled, or that have simple interpreters.

But who am I to question some guys at MIT?

Re:Lightweight?

[RAMMS EIN]

There have been many discussions about what exactly defines a lightweight language. The only conclusion I can draw from them is that people can't agree on a clear definition.

My understanding of the concept is a language that has a small core, flexible enough to grow to many needs. This allows for small, simple implementations of said core, although such implementations are not a necessary criterion.

Scheme is a good example of a language that fits the definition. Scheme implementations are simple to write, yet Scheme is a very flexible (and therefore powerful) language.

Controversially, I would see Perl as a rather heavyweight language. The various different ways things can be written down and the inclusion of regular expressions in the core would seem to make Perl a rather heavy language.

I acknowledge that my views are highly subjective and may be based on an imperfect understanding of the matter. They may change over time as my understanding improves.

before you waste bandwidth

[t482]

The program is available here and the abstracts are available here

Since when was Perl considered 'lightweight'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perl5 is big enough and Perl6 promises to have an even larger memory footprint.

Sponsored by Microsoft Research

[quamaretto]

...But I'm sure they'll give equal coverage even to products that are going to be in competition with Microsoft.
-- END SARCASM --

Seriously, who would take seriously a seminar on light programming langauges from the company that has helped to make C++ the de facto application programming language for 10 years? The only light language that I've seen Microsoft push is VBScript. And I think we all know where they can shove VBScript.

Re:Sponsored by Microsoft Research

[jbrandon]

The only light language that I've seen Microsoft push is VBScript.

This is Microsoft Research, which is different from Microsoft, proper. For instance, MR sponsors Simon Peyton Jones, who spends an enormous amount of effort on Haskell.

If you look at proceedings from years past, you will see that this isn't the MS fan club meeting.

Ruby

[Pacifix]

Ruby is really picking up speed here in the US and I'm surprised to see that's not included. It even has a movement and language leader, Matz. I'm not sure how fluent he is in English. For me, Ruby certainly was easy to learn and would seem to be a perfect candidate for inclusion in a light weight language discussion. Odd...

Lua? Anyone? Anyone?

[cookd]

Strangely, one of the best (IMHO) "lightweight" languages isn't even mentioned (as far as I can tell, anyway). Lua is really lightweight (easy to learn, and very easy on resource usage) yet very powerful. I wonder why it doesn't get more attention...