Slashdot Mirror


New NSA-Funded Code Rolls All Programming Languages Into One

An anonymous reader writes "What's your favorite programming language? Is it CSS? Is it JavaScript? Is it PHP, HTML5, or something else? Why choose? A new programming language developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University is all of those and more — one of the world's first "polyglot" programming languages. Sound cool? It is, except its development is partially funded by the National Security Agency, so let's look at it with a skeptical eye. It's called Wyvern — named after a mythical dragon-like thing that only has two legs instead of four — and it's supposed to help programmers design apps and websites without having to rely on a whole bunch of different stylesheets and different amalgamations spread across different files.

306 comments

  1. Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why? What's the worst that could happen? What's the best?

    Why is the NSA interested in something like that directly? What is the potential for abuse?

    Is it to make code analysis that much more centralized and (supposedly) simple?

    Why didn't this come up with itself before now?

    1. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The standard NSA tatctic for introducing security holes into a system is to obfuscate things so that holes are hard to spot and find. SELinux is probably such a system, and this polglot language -- which effectviely makes debugging impossible -- is likely another.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why?

      To write applications in one language, instead of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, SQL, and something else. Not including multiple levels of configuration files (website and web server at least).

      What's the worst that could happen?

      The NSA could insert backdoors which, unless they were incomprehensible crypto, would be easily found by both white and black hat investigators. Also, Carnegie Mellon University, which has a pile of research announcements every year, has its entire research department under suspicion of colluding with an oppressive government agency and spends decades regaining international status as someone you can do anything other than make the punchline of a joke.

      CMU losing status is, to CMU, absolutely an intolerable option. I'm not saying it won't just because of the potential impact, but you asked what is the worst that could happen. Backdoors, and a respected university bursts into flames and is disregarded for decades internationally. That's bad.

      What's the best?

      Fewer bugs.

      Why is the NSA interested in something like that directly?

      Because despite recent bad press, they are interested in security. If we can write stuff with fewer bugs, we are more secure. Maybe there are still plenty of bugs in the hardware/OS that they know about, but fewer bugs in the application level, which means the foreigners don't know about them because they don't exist.

      What is the potential for abuse?

      Pretty small. White hats will vet the libraries, black hats will try to penetrate it, and it's no more or less secure than anything else a human has written. But people can make mistakes in fewer languages. And they aren't replacing languages, from the sound of it.

      Is it to make code analysis that much more centralized and (supposedly) simple?

      I suppose you could read the article.

      Why didn't this come up with itself before now?

      Why didn't the airplane come up before it did? Are you insinuating something? Do you know something we don't know? Did someone mod you up for any particular reason, or just because you spewed thoughtless rhetorical questions?

    3. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by TheMCP · · Score: 2

      It *has* been done before. I worked on it years ago. One of my colleagues came up with it in 1999.

      http://www.waterlanguage.org/

      It was brilliant to work in, but it didn't catch on.

    4. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not impressed. The OP obviously doesn't understand a thing about programming languages in general, or programming as an activity in particcular. Or he would know that the use of multiple files, and multiple languages, is a means to an end, not a nuisance. Namely to manage complexity, and to use the most appropriate level of abstraction to solve a particular problem. If he'd know he would not claim that wyvern is a polyglot language, but that it is a meta language to create internal DSLs, domain specific languages. So if anything it is a tool to create new languages, as oppose to to eliminate existing ones as by his claim. Poor sod

    5. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water was XML based. Way to go...

    6. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      backdoors [...] would be easily found by both white and black hat investigators.

      That's about the same as stating it is as simple to find a needle in a haystack as to put one in.

      We already have issues finding normal bugs. We have seen flaws in kernels and encryption libraries that might have well been a typo, yet were in for years.

    7. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Except that it's not valid XML but something even worse.
      That language just looks horrible.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by jythie · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, people need to remember that the NSA is a big organization with lots of departments in it with different sets of priorities.

      As for why someone did not come up with it before, I have not looked lately, but old versions of GCC could compile together half a dozen languages into a single binary and I worked on a team that split up the project into multiple languages using the feature.

    9. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My water just broke.

    10. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by digitig · · Score: 1

      Why didn't this come up with itself before now?

      Jack of all trades, master of none.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by BlackHeron717 · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your comment, but I am not sure how this makes debugging impossible, please elaborate.

    12. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about the same as stating it is as simple to find a needle in a haystack as to put one in.

      Ever heard of a magnet?

    13. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To properly need to debug such a language, you would need to be aware of all of the possible rules, pitfalls, bugs, and race conditions of every language under its hood.

      At a basic level, is your "if else" condition running on it's Java or C++ or C version? Does it catch exceptions? Where is data being handled in memory? Are buffer overruns possible in some of these languages?

      No one human could possibly we simultaneously cognisant of all possible sources of error. Programs in such a language would be a security disaster waiting to happen.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    14. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Skarjak · · Score: 1

      Yup, the NSA is insane or stupid if they think people will trust this.

    15. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SELinux, really? Yes, SELinux is complicated, but its designed for the military to lock down its own systems. While Using it is obfuscated, its code is simple, its just hard to use.

    16. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I think it's for automated code review machine analysis.

    17. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posing questions to you is "thoughtless", I see, as you make up bullshit plausibility that fails to adequately answer them.

      I posted as AC because I could give a shit about your gay-rage mod points, and yet people felt they were good questions to ask and modded it up anyhow.

      The same groupthink modded your thoughtless "analysis" up also, but you don't see me complaining about their choices. You have a right to be a snarky bitch.

    18. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Set the haystack on fire - the needle won't burn and will be left in the ashes.

      Put the haystack into a body of water and the hay will mostly float whereas the needle will sink.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    19. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Also, you can use a metal detector. Or some kind of x-ray machine.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    20. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      No, how do they work?

    21. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. We've been striving to improve language interoperability for a long time. First we had the language binders like SWIG, then we had p-code in .Net. These both do a good job of it but SWIG always felt clunky and .Net wouldn't allowing mixing source files in a single project without clever reconfiguration and symbol munging madness. If a tool comes along that allows me to put a .cpp file next to a .py file and then see the c symbols from Python...I'll be very happy with that. That means we can now port selectively with far less overhead and use the best language for the job without compromising other aspects of the code or making the MAKEFILE look like a spaghetti nightmare monster.

      As with all things you'll be able to use this language to build some truly horrendous blobs of amorphous goop but that's been true of all languages since the get go. A language is a tool, you can use it badly no matter how pure and perfect it is. If you start drilling holes all over everything then something bad is going to happen no matter how good the brand of hammer drill.

    22. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnet

    23. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm not a big fan of the NSA's seemingly absolute power, they seem to have no real issue penetrating current programming paradigms. As such, I think I'm forced to agree with bite. I find it far more likely that the NSA would like to use Wyvern for their own web programming which would mean that being involved in it during the language's early adoption would help prevent a number of headaches later on. If they want your data, all they have to do is sniff your packets, they really don't need to hijack a programming language to do it.

    24. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military's attempt at a single language is ADA. And, it's still being used.

    25. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      CMU losing status is, to CMU, absolutely an intolerable option.

      Some argue that happened years ago when the hypen was removed and the logo buggered.

    26. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by Gob+Gob · · Score: 1

      Because despite recent bad press, they are interested in security. If we can write stuff with fewer bugs, we are more secure.

      I'm confused, if things that make things more secure for "us" don't they make them more secure for "them"? Isn't that why some technologies like encryption are not allowed to be exported to certain corners of the Internet?

      If a government agency wants to insert itself into such a project - Cui bono? Its more like an action to stir the pot than to bring about conclusion. They only have power if there is an enemy so winning the war is not an option.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    27. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you reduce the number of environments and thus the "level of abstraction" in code, it's easier to code review quickly and machine analyze in particular.

      Maybe you're not impressed because you aren't thinking very deeply beyond programming meta.

    28. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      ...We have seen flaws in kernels and encryption libraries that might have well been a typo, yet were in for years.

      A new language that either doesn't allow such bugs or has a method for universally finding them would be the Holy Grail of programming.
      Unfortunately like the Holy Grail it is likely not to exist and instead lead us all on endless never-ending quests that eat up our whole lives...

      I have long been on my own quest for another holy grail - Strong AI - but I am sure it exists. It has the same but opposite problems to the idea of a universal language - the core is an in...- well I mustn't tell anyone, they might be after the same grail too after all. :D

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    29. Re: Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While using it? Sounds like something out of some .NET code. You've clearly been coding to much or... maybe me?

    30. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Yes. A company I worked with tried an blah-XL based language, too. The thing was a nightmare. If you didn't have a decent editor handy, you were up shit creek. Simple to poorly indent, leading to misunderstanding in scope and structure, while simultaneously being syntactically bulky and hard to read, XML a great notation to hate.

      Whatever your language was, if it had anything at all to do with XML syntactically (other than throwing its syntax away), it's probably an example of this: A programmer had the problem of designing a data representation. He chose XML and now he has two problems.

      --
      That is all.
    31. Re:Wyvern = Wyrm by andrzej.w.lipski · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a classic get smart program name. A secret project that reveals exactly what the project intends to do. Is this where we are?

  2. Lack of basic research by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I arrived at America pretty late - at the 60's - but at least at that time America had several institutions doing all kinds of wonderful basic research

    Bell Labs
    Xerox's famous lab at Palo Alto
    The Skunkworks

    And at that time Darpa funded a lot of basic research as well

    Today, all gone

    Even Darpa's funding are not aiming at basic research - such as what TFA has outlined - what they are doing at Carnegie Mellon is actually an applied research ... taking what has been known and add another layer onto it

    What's happening in America nowadays is very worrying

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Lack of basic research by silfen · · Score: 0, Troll

      What's happening in America nowadays is very worrying

      There are lots of things that are worrying in America. The breakup of the Bell Telephone system (Bell Labs), the elimination of the monopoly on photocopying (Xerox), and any reduction in defense spending (The Skunkworks) aren't among the things that should worry you.

      And at that time Darpa funded a lot of basic research as well Today, all gone

      R&D spending on both basic and applied reseach has generally been going up for decades until about 2008. Since then, federal R&D spending has been declining strongly, thanks to the policies of our oh-so-science-friendly administration.

    2. Re:Lack of basic research by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, a lot of research was done by the private labs of corporations back then, like IBM, RCA, etc.. Engineering was a respected profession, you needed real talent to become an engineer or programmer and you could earn a good living that way in the West.

      Then one day some bright psychopath realized it would be cheaper if universities did the research with government money instead.

      Then you get the research done, your future employees come already in debt, and then they work for peanuts paying back their student loans.

      So companies used to pay YOU to do research, now YOU pay to go to university and the companies get to keep the IP!

      And social engineering and manipulation means that people will WILLINGLY do so!

      Brilliant!

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The breakup of the Bell Telephone system (Bell Labs), the elimination of the monopoly on photocopying (Xerox), and any reduction in defense spending (The Skunkworks) aren't among the things that should worry you.

      Way to miss the point. It doesn't matter who funds these things, what matters is that they're getting done. The fact that Bell or Xerox was a monopoly does not undermine the merit of their research work.

      They made the first transistors at Bell Labs, for fuck's sake! Xerox PARC paved the way for the modern GUI!

      If the "good guys" aren't there to put up the cash to move society forward, what good are they? Would you have us all stand still?

    4. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economy going to shit didnt have anything to do with that? I work at a place that up to that point was mostly funded through DARPA projects. Funding dried up well before Obama came in to office, even before the banks started (publicly) collapsing.

    5. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what wonderful research did you all do and inventions/discoveries did you all make?

      If your bunch were taking public funds but weren't doing anything that was really innovative then you weren't really doing what the OP was talking about.

    6. Re:Lack of basic research by khallow · · Score: 1

      Today, all gone

      Yet at the same time, the US spends considerably more on research than it did then. I think here the explanation is that public funding crowded out private for basic research.

      It makes little sense to fund your own research in the cases where some government would fund it for you. Similarly, if you're a researcher, public funding is high quality and less demanding than private funding. Sure, you have to fill out a ton of paperwork. But they don't have the anything like the expectations that most private funders would have.

    7. Re:Lack of basic research by thetoastman · · Score: 1

      Sigh, Commander Taco, I'm not sure how familiar you are with basic research.

      I'm not familiar with basic research in the computer sciences (although I enjoy reading the papers), but I am familiar with basic research in chemistry.

      Unless you've had a sudden, brilliant insight, all research is painstakingly build on someone else's work. In fact, as a grad student you're often asked to write a review article in your area of research before you begin actual research. This gets you familiar with the lay of the land (knowledge), the direction of the field, and some of the major players in your chosen area of research. Plus, you and your research adviser might get a publication out of it.

      I took a look at some of the topics mentioned on Wyvern's home page. A couple of them caught my eyes:

      • Safely Composable Type-Specific Languages. Cyrus Omar, Darya Kurilova, Ligia Nistor, Benjamin Chung, Alex Potanin, and Jonathan Aldrich. Proc. European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, 2014.
      • Language-Based Architectural Control. Jonathan Aldrich, Cyrus Omar, Alex Potanin, and Du Li. In International Workshop on Aliasing, Capabilities, and Ownership (IWACO '14), 2014.
      • Type-Directed, Whitespace-Delimited Parsing for Embedded DSLs. Cyrus Omar, Benjamin Chung, Darya Kurilova, Alex Potanin, and Jonathan Aldrich. In Globalization of Domain Specific Languages (GlobalDSL), 2013.

      I don't know enough about the research space to know if these topics are derivative, progressive, or ground-breaking. I like the ideas that seem to be embedded in the titles, and the focus on creating safer languages / systems from an architectural point rather than brutally enforced by a compiler (see ADA).

      I work in the space of HTML / CSS / Javascript / Java / SQL / Map-Reduce / Linux. It's a mess, with security, performance, reliability issues both at the boundaries and within the various containers. Something that makes life a little better in that space should be a good thing. As it is, I see front end developers not understanding back end constraints, data source developers delivering data in not-usable blobs, system admins without the necessary background to troubleshoot platform performance issues.

      As a systems architect, I try to herd everything in one general direction, but to the specialists my statements can sound restrictive, demanding, and somewhat arbitrary (they're usually none of the above). If we had a common architecture / language, we might be able to converge on a better, safer application in less time, with less friction.

      Don't talk to me about UML. I like it, but I don't know many who do or use it much past the design phase (if that).

      In short, it looks interesting and ambitious. I'll be interested in seeing how far this gets.

      --- end Sunday night rant

    8. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First off, Federal R&D spending has not declined strongly, or not at all for that matter in both total amounts as well as inflation-adjusted amounts. At worst it has been flat. But why is that? I assume that you don't really understand how the Federal budget process works, do you? The President submits his budget, the Senate praises it for strengthening our commitment to the future, and the House eviscerates the President as a communist/muslim who wastes money on pseudo-science issues like climate change and "green" energy. What follows is a lot of grandstanding and name calling whereby the two chambers, who incidentally are the ones who are supposed to actually pass funding bills, don't do shit and end up passing continuing resolutions for all bills (except the one that has to do with funding Congress) that keeps funding essentially flat for another year. Then certain people who seem to outsource their critical thinking skills to one or two talking heads on the radio or TV for political analysis find a way to blame the President for not doing Congress's job as mandated in the Constitution.

    9. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet at the same time, the US spends considerably more on research than it did then.

      Right. The NASA budget would disagree on that point. You should realize that today's R&D includes things like computer software - most of it has nothing to do with research. If you disagree, you might as well say building a bridge is research.

      Pharmaceutical spend more on adverts in US than on research, and their research are clinical trials not basic research.

      Research at Universities is cut away. Tenured positions are evaporating quicker than water in California aquifers. The wheels are spinning, but the hamster's dead. That's the status of primary research in the US or Canada.

    10. Re:Lack of basic research by disposable60 · · Score: 1

      Since then, federal R&D spending has been declining strongly, thanks to the policies of our oh-so-science-friendly *administration*.

      I think you misspelled *legislature*.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    11. Re:Lack of basic research by silfen · · Score: 1

      I suggest you have a look at the US budget process:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      The president pays lip service to science, but in the end, he obviously cares about other programs more, like handouts to his buddies in industry through "stimulus packages" and "bailouts" and all that crap.

    12. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about IP.

      When is the last time a R&D project from a university went directly into production?

      A lot of corporate R&D project did back in the day (Internet being one) and the MBA never realized that is why corporate R&D was so expensive compared to university R&D. That domain knowledge to get it into production and actually make a profit out the door is worth every penny.

      Now everything coming out of R&D is in perpetual beta, or makes zero profit for years.

    13. Re:Lack of basic research by khallow · · Score: 1

      The NASA budget would disagree on that point.

      Ignoring that NASA just doesn't do and never has done that much actual research then or now, we still have that NASA is burning lots of money on the space/Earth science category now while it was burning lots of money on national prestige projects in the 60s and 70s.

      The NSF and NIH spend lots of money on basic research too. It gets squandered, but the money is there.

      Pharmaceutical spend more on adverts in US than on research, and their research are clinical trials not basic research.

      Thank the FDA for keeping you safe and destroying yet another source of research funding.

      Research at Universities is cut away. Tenured positions are evaporating quicker than water in California aquifers. The wheels are spinning, but the hamster's dead. That's the status of primary research in the US or Canada.

      I find it a bit paradoxical that you can complain about science funding by pointing to elimination of one of the bigger institutional obstacles to good research, academic tenure. For example, there's a huge destructive dynamic where an excess of scientists are trained (via excessive minting of new PhDs) in order to support a few extra tenure positions. Meanwhile the people who make the poor decisions which creates this dynamic are safely insulated from the consequences of their actions by tenure. They don't, for example, have to worry about their jobs being taken by the horde of hungry graduates.

      My view is that the institutions and culture are deeply poisoned against useful scientific research. There is a huge disconnect between funding for this sort of thing and outcome. I think it all boils down to lack of accountability especially while spending other peoples' money.

      And this avoidance of responsibility and accountability shows up in your reasoning. for example, your emphasis on "basic" and "primary research" or "tenure" rather than the alleged benefits of those things. It also shows up in the remarkably terrible expectations people have for research (such as NASA research projects, for a glaring example already mentioned).

      My view on this is that current "basic" or "primary" research is worthless research. It is inherently and deliberately restricted to research that doesn't deliver value.

      There are two things to note. First, good research is valuable in a human lifetime, often immediately. You don't have to wait three hundred years to see if there are going to be benefits from the work.

      Note that I'm not advocating the next quarter thinking (which seems to be the common fallacy that people reach for when they hear my argument) that everyone claims businesses do or that research should turn a monetary profit. Scientists even can evaluate with decent success the relative value of their projects and when their resources are on the line, they make those decisions.

      It's foolhardy to assume that merely going through the motions of research is going to result in actual research anymore than say building fake planes out of straw will bring in real planes. The process is not the outcome.

      Second, the current approach just isn't working despite astounding levels of funding by all parties involved. My view is that with public funding from any source, there is at least one order of magnitude of waste built in over a potential private project. It's by its nature inherently monumentally inefficient. But they can spend well over an order of magnitude more than private sources.

      This poisons the well for private research. Why should the private world build a $100 million particle accelerator when the governments of the world can slap a billion dollar one toget

    14. Re:Lack of basic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, Federal R&D spending has not declined strongly, or not at all for that matter in both total amounts as well as inflation-adjusted amounts. At worst it has been flat

      That's bullshit. Here's a direct quote: In historical terms, when adjusted for inflation, these figures put federal R&D investment at its lowest point since FY 2002, and more than $25 billion in constant dollars below the all-time peak in 2010. This represents a 17.1 percent decline in just three years. Source? AAAS, doesn't get more reputable than that. http://www.aaas.org/news/congr...

      I assume that you don't really understand how the Federal budget process [house.gov] works, do you?

      No, you apparently don't understand the budget process: budgets are about tradeoffs, and Obama's tradeoffs are clear: crony capitalism and vote buying have the highest priority, and he is refusing to budget from that one iota.

      Then certain people who seem to outsource their critical thinking skills to one or two talking heads on the radio or TV for political analysis find a way to blame the President for not doing Congress's job as mandated in the Constitution.

      Congress has been trying to do its job, which is to stop the debt from spiraling out of control and for the country to go bankrupt. You know, like Obama likes to say "every civilized country..."; well, in this case, every civilized country (like all European ones) have strong limits on their debt and deficit. But there is a limit how much Congress can do when faced by a president who is willing to break laws seemingly without limit.

      The President submits his budget, the Senate praises it for strengthening our commitment to the future, and the House eviscerates the President as a liar, bully, and idiot who wastes money on pseudo-science issues like climate change and "green" energy.

      FTFY

  3. Wyvern? by lsllll · · Score: 2

    I looked up images of Wyvern on Google images. Don't think it's a good choice. Reminds me of the NSA's overreach over our lives. I think they should have named it Pussy Cat.

    --
    Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    1. Re:Wyvern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked up images of Wyvern on Google images. Don't think it's a good choice. Reminds me of the NSA's overreach over our lives. I think they should have named it Pussy Cat.

      Just call it "Pussy" for short.

      What self respecting geek could argue against Pussy?

    2. Re:Wyvern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but then no geek would ever see it. After all, what self respecting geek has ever seen Pussy?

  4. Shit summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CSS and HTML5 are not programming languages. You don't "choose" html5 over, say, php.
    (And don't fucking say HTML5 + CSS3 is turing complete)

    1. Re:Shit summary by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't see any programming languages in the list on the summary. Just a bunch of web shit.

    2. Re:Shit summary by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah and can you imagine the horrific shit sandwich that would be a combination of CSS, HTML5, PHP and JavaScript?

      666 Mark of the Techno Beast. It's like some shit Ghostbusters 2099 would be tasked with stopping.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Shit summary by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Java?

    4. Re:Shit summary by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      PHP and javascript are both fully functional programming languages even if both have flaws. CSS and HTML on the other hand are for web markup and display.

  5. CSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What's your favorite programming language? Is it CSS?"

    Why yes, I just love writing VoIP systems in CSS.

    1. Re:CSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can even build a GUI to track a killer!

    2. Re:CSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to take a seat?

    3. Re:CSS? by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      Every time I see the wish to create yet another, newer, better way to program a computer, instead of the oldschool assembler, C, Basic and Pascal methods, it keeps reminding me to ask people to let's come up with a better way to represent numbers. As in Roman numerals like MCMLXXXIV truly suck compared to Hindu (called Arabic) 1984 numerals, but we shouldn't leave it at that, there's gotta be something better than that Hindu representation. But the reality is that we'd be like a dog chasing it's tail with a myriad of patentable yet equivalent or even worse ways to represent numbers, and in fact even if equivalent, the cost of getting used to the new was is by itself not worth it, without any tangible benefit. So whoever makes a living on inventing new numeral ways of representation, like those in the computer science business are trying to make a living from inventing run of the mill but no better than what we used to have, patentable languages, they are in the same situation. At least that's my 2 cents. We gotta keep evolving, we gotta keep up with the times, we gotta keep up with change. Oh yeah? How about some French numerals then, instead of Roman or Arabic ones, that are better. Or American numerals. Who can come up with a better way to do it? Huh? Huh?

    4. Re:CSS? by doublebackslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to point out that you can't represent irrational numbers accurately without a new system. Let alone trancendental numbers.

      Also some numbering systems are more convenient. Binary, for example. Not different numerals, but used differently.

      I know, not exactly your point, but don't dismiss languages other than C, Basic, and Pascal.

      --
      md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
      d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
    5. Re:CSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's your favorite programming language? Is it CSS?"

      Why yes, I just love writing VoIP systems in CSS.

      Psshhh. Everyone knows that HTML is far superior...

    6. Re:CSS? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You can't represent most real numbers anyway with any notation. Any digital system has only countably many representations, and the number of reals is uncountable. Any analog system will have limits of measurement, and thus can be represented digitally.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:CSS? by doublebackslash · · Score: 1

      indeed! And extending the analogy even more even though we *could* write Graham's number in decimal the number of digits makes it impossible to physically realize, but we can represent it with up arrow notation with relative ease.

      Granted, all of these mathematical facts don't map 1:1 back to the original debate but it does encourage thinking about programming languages not as meaningless novelties derived from one system but as a landscape of utility, each with their own merits or lack thereof.

      Also +1 for citing the uncountable infinity of the reals. Learning the difference between aleph null and aleph 1 was a deeply satisfying experience for me.

      --
      md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
      d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
    8. Re:CSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a dog chasing it's tail

      "its".

  6. Not programming languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hate to break it to you, but HTML5 and CSS are not programming languages.

    1. Re:Not programming languages by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Indeed. And JavaScript and PHP are special-purpose languages that are unfit to be user in a general setting. The OP has no clue.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Not programming languages by gnupun · · Score: 1

      But they are domain specific declarative programming languages. Not all programming languages are imperative or functional.

    3. Re:Not programming languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. And JavaScript and PHP are special-purpose languages that are unfit to be user in a general setting.

      Actually, PHP is unfit to be used in any setting.

    4. Re:Not programming languages by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not quite, but it decidedly requires quite advanced skills to produces anything good with it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Not programming languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are not. Stop copy/pasting from Wikipedia. It doesn't make you look smart.

    6. Re:Not programming languages by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Nah, he's right. When your skills get "sufficiently advanced" and your needs spread into the more esoteric corners of the house of horrors, you run into even more half-done, half-assed, all-broken aspects of the language.

      To this day, I'm not quite sure what the point was in implementing an SSL API that has no way to check for certificate revocation (the whole point of certificate-based security)...

    7. Re:Not programming languages by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That bad? Well, I believe you and I am glad I never invested significant time into PHP.

      Incidentally, while revocation is the critical part of the whole certificate system (I learned that, oh, 25 years ago in a university lecture on "authentication systems", so it has been known to anybody that wanted to find out for at least 5 years longer), most people do not get that at all. You can routinely tell people apart into those that get what crypto can do and what it cannot and those that are clueless, merely by asking about certificate revocation. Incidentally, there still is no certificate revocation system that works, even after at least 30 years or so of research. The only thing that works to some degree is shipping revocation lists with browser updates. But that is neither a good solution, nor a general one.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. Compiler virus by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wasn't there some discussion on how effective a special, compiler-embedded virus would be? This seems like a good candidate for that.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Compiler virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, why would they do such a thing?
      YOU ARE A TINFOIL-HAT CONSPIRACY THEORY NUTHEAD!
      *Oh wait this argument is invalid post sn0wd3n.*

  8. DARPA... by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 1

    Uh, and DARPA created the internet, so what?

  9. F'ing Genious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's all applaud NSA on this one. Seriously whoever came up with this one deserves to be NSA's employee of the month. I think Obama just had a wet dream.

  10. NSA: A Source Name we trust! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Yes! Finally, a programming language and development system from a serious organization we can all trust to help us produce secure applications! I am so happy I'm doing the little Snoopy Dog House Dance! Oh-Joy! More Exclamation Points Please!!!

    1. Re:NSA: A Source Name we trust! by amjohns · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like that horrible SELinux thing they developed...

    2. Re:NSA: A Source Name we trust! by ron_ivi · · Score: 2

      Sad thing is that not even you know if you're being sarcastic or not.

  11. You have n programming languages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have n programming languages. You think "That's to many, let's invent a programming language that combines all of them!", and then do so. You now have n+1 programming languages...

    1. Re:You have n programming languages... by weilawei · · Score: 2

      Apologies to you, AC, for hijacking your highly upvoted comment.

      We appear to have something rather serious at work here. A registered user (jelIomizer, the second 'L' is actually an 'i' character or some Unicode variant) posted over 28 posts (all MyCleanPC spam) in under 6 minutes on this article--something neither you or I can do. This smacks of a slashcode bug or admin collusion.

      For reference...

      Oh yeah, hello to all the friendly NSA propaganda operatives out there. Go fuck yourself.

    2. Re:You have n programming languages... by BitZtream · · Score: 2
      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:You have n programming languages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/

    4. Re:You have n programming languages... by silent-listener · · Score: 1

      The remark on Github ' Wyvern requires the Java 8 JDK ' will give a new try to get a programming languages with the best of all previous or n+2. The old languages as C are not so bad, as they still try to copy it.

  12. Ummm... Fuck beta. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Yeah, again....

  13. Ridiculous Summary, Interesting Papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    As you'd expect from CMU, the papers themselves are pretty interesting. Just read the abstracts instead of trying to guess from the summary or vice article, which are both way off the mark.

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aldrich/papers/ecoop14-tsls.pdf
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aldrich/papers/maspeghi13.pdf

    1. Re:Ridiculous Summary, Interesting Papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second link is a good breakdown of what they are trying to do and yes... the summary and the article are both incredibly off. There is no mention of HTML/CSS, the collective markup of the web, neither of which are programming languages.

      It seems this is more of an attempt to take a new approach on how to build an object oriented language in a clean and extensible way. If anything, Wyvern is to Java what XML is to HTML.

      The paper does mention that it can be compiled into either Java or JavaScript which I am sure will make maintaining client/server code easier than having to jump between the syntax of Javascript and the server side language of your choice. That is about the only problem it would solve for your average jack-of-all-trades web developer.

  14. Because More is always better !!! by bug1 · · Score: 1

    At the NSA they KNOW a bigger haystack is a better haystack, so why not extend that idea to a programming language.

    By understanding all the languages you get the strengths of all the languages and none of the weaknesses, programmers can just ignore the weaknesses then they arent there,

    Why should programmers have to put up with those pesky syntax errors when you can just make the language accept any (stupid) command.

    Forward to the future !

  15. Fuck web programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sound cool?

    Nope. I don't wrote Web crApps.

  16. why- just why? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why in the hell would you need to look at something with a skeptical eye just because money came from a certain source? Is the reputation of carnegie mellon suspect or something? And if so, shouldn't that in and of itself be the reason of suspect?

    The submiter is a shallow person suffering from guilt by association which is never a valid premise. I mean i know skin heads who donate to planned patrenthood specifically because they have all their abortion clinics in areas with high minority populations and keep the minority populations in check. Does that mean we have to look at them wiyh a skeptical eye too? Of course not- or at least npt because a source of their funding has issues most of us find repulsive.

    The merrits of this will rest on its own. There is absolutely no reason to put the integrity of the development into question simply because the NSA gave funding.

    1. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the hell would you need to look at something with a skeptical eye just because money came from a certain source?

      That depends on what it is. Proprietary software funded by the NSA would be a definite "no," for obvious reasons.

    2. Re:why- just why? by Desler · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except it's not proprietary. It's GPLv2 and on Github.

    3. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a hypothetical. He asked: "Why in the hell would you need to look at something with a skeptical eye just because money came from a certain source?" I merely gave him a situation where taking into account the source would be important.

    4. Re:why- just why? by Spinalcold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should always look at the funding path. It tells you a lot about the quality of research. In the past 60 years funding towards 'think tanks' has gone into making bad science to combat good science research, all in an effort to move political goals. I'm not saying this particular research is bad, however it is good to know some of the funding came from the NSA.

    5. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is absolutely no reason to put the integrity of the development into question simply because the NSA gave funding."

      Well, there is exactly ONE reason.

    6. Re:why- just why? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If the NSA or evil software writers association actually developed the software, then yes. But simply passing money to an otherwise reputated team makes no sense- closed or open.

    7. Re:why- just why? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No.. you are just as likely to overlook good research and settle for bad research when the source of funds is a primary role in how you accept it.

      The research and or science will stand on its own merrits. Well, that is if science is the goal and not politics. In this case, a university of good repute just had its integrity challenged by nothing more than idiots on parade trying to turn something political. There is no justification for it. Just mentioning the funding sources is one thing, but they actually implied it meant something and that is wrong.

    8. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.snopes.com/critters/malice/scorpion.asp

    9. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the hell would you need to look at something with a skeptical eye just because money came from a certain source?

      Because our own government reads motive into the source of funds in many cases. Hezbollah, Hamas, .... bad. Israel ... good.

    10. Re:why- just why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Except that one wonders *why* are they funding it. How will it make our communications less secure?

      Off hand the only thing that comes to mind is that there would be fewer components of the browser that the NSA needed to compromise if all the languages used the same interpreter. Perhaps that's all there is. It's even possible that they didn't fund the project with a malign intent. That, however, is not the way I'd bet given their "improvements" of encryption methods.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:why- just why? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is absolutely no reason to put the integrity of the development into question simply because the NSA gave funding.

      Uh yes, there is.

      As a key part of a campaign to embed encryption software that it could crack into widely used computer products, the U.S. National Security Agency arranged a secret $10 million contract with RSA, one of the most influential firms in the computer security industry, Reuters has learned.

      How much longer are you willing to be a battered spouse, making excuses for your abuser?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look at if those who funded the research will benefit from one particular conclusion over another.

      Then you'll know.

      AC

    13. Re:why- just why? by hubie · · Score: 2

      They fund it because they fund all sorts of basic and applied research.

    14. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the skin heads are earmarking their donations for "encourage black women to abort and white women not to" then yeah, it is a problem. We don't know what is going on, so it's worth being suspicious.

      Historically, are there any cases of organizations like the NSA giving money for anything that ISN'T deceptively self-serving?

    15. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the hell would you need to look at something with a skeptical eye just because money came from a certain source?

      Because in this case the source is unlikely to fork out the money without getting anything in return.

    16. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no justification for it. Just mentioning the funding sources is one thing, but they actually implied it meant something and that is wrong.

      It is not wrong at all. The NSA has a long history of deception. Lying to congress no less. That makes anything they touch guilty until proven innocent, including anything that superficially looks like conventional research. Who knows? Maybe it's just money; but it could also be money with strings attached. Yes, the generally good reputation of CMU, if not the individual researchers, needs to be weighed against that. But it does need to be weighed. Like a lot of "research" funded by drug companies.

    17. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:why- just why? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The NSA never touched this though. You sem to be trying to say that since a drunken murderer buys jim beam that all whiskey jim beam produces is somehow now suspect. It juat aint so.

    19. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and unless anyone can see the source code, it's better not to trust any software they fund. That doesn't apply to this.

    20. Re:why- just why? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Half of the NSA's budget is spying.
      The other half of the NSA's budget is defending the US government from spying.

      You shouldn't assume that all of the NSA's activities are in the first pool.

    21. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Think about it this way - if the NSA randomly put millions or billions of dollars into different projects with no concern whatsoever for their return, what would you think about them then? "Here's a check - we really don't give a crap about how your project would be useful to us. "

      That sounds crazy, and should concern you as a waste of taxpayer money. No, if the NSA funds something, it is because they expect it to further their goals and objectives somehow, otherwise they aren't doing their job.

      The question is are they being open about why they fund various projects, or do they give no explanation, and people have to guess at their true motives.

      One possible motive is a decoy - another project that people have to burn thousands of hours examining, trying to figure out if they bugged it, only to determine that maybe they didn't after all :)

    22. Re:why- just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are an idiot. Keep your idiot talking points in your circle of idiots.

    23. Re:why- just why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you can't tell one hand from the other, why shouldn't you assume that it's the treacherous one? Vile acts can be MUCH more destructive than virtuous act can be constructive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    24. Re:why- just why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes. So MAYBE it's reasonable. But since it's selected for promotion by the NSA it's also reasonable to look for secondary effects. Remember, they not only acted to strengthen net encryption in a way that nobody understood for a decade, they also acted to weaken it in a way that nobody understood for a decade.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    25. Re:why- just why? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The NSA didn't directly touch the RSA's code either. They just suggested (with a $10M incentive) certain values in an algorithm.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... without having to rely on a whole bunch of different stylesheets and different amalgamations spread across different files

    There's nothing I love more than editing each embedded style sheet in a tree and searching through monolithic source files with thousands of functions...

  18. No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one". It just allows embedding of the text of another language, such as HTML, into a Wyvern program. Variables can be substituted. Like this:

    let webpage : HTML = <html><body><h1>Results for {keyword}</h1
    <ul id="results">{to_list_items(query(db,
    SELECT title, snippet FROM products WHERE {keyword} in title))}
    </ul></body></html>

    (except that the last 3 lines above should be indented, because this language uses Python-style block notation.)

    Of course, everybody does that now, but the way they do it, especially in PHP, tends to lead to problems such as SQL injection attacks. The idea here is that Wyvern has modules for the inserted text which understand what kinds of quoting or escaping are required for the embedded language text.

    I just glanced at the paper, but that seems to be the big new feature.

    1. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      That problem would not exist if people new how to use a database.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    2. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not just about quoting or escaping. It actually builds an AST for each TSL expression (for example, an HTML expression), so they can tell if the expression is valid and how to combine the Wyvern expression with the TSL expression containing it. It looks like brain-dead string concatenation, which reduces clutter and improves readability, but it gives you all the benefits of using the type system.

    3. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or knew how to spell.

    4. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this has already been beaten to death. Why are they making a new language? There's plently of libraries for, say, Python, Java, Ruby, Perl, that handle this issue plus many others.

    5. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by countach · · Score: 1

      yeah, and the Java experience is that embedding code with html isn't a great idea. That's why JSP is on the way out and JSF on the way in.

    6. Re: No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gnu that.

    7. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just about quoting or escaping. It actually builds an AST for each TSL expression (for example, an HTML expression), so they can tell if the expression is valid and how to combine the Wyvern expression with the TSL expression containing it.

      Ur/Web?

    8. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New? Is the written in C++?

    9. Re:No, it doesn't "roll all languages into one" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why it's ColdFusion...done wrong!

  19. skilled international negotiator! by silfen · · Score: 2

    "Wyvern is like a skilled international negotiator who can smoothly switch between languages to get a whole team of people to work together," Aldrich said. "Such a person can be extremely effective and, likewise, I think our new approach can have a big impact on building software systems."

    Yeah, about as skilled and effective as past Israeli-Palestinian negotiators...

  20. CSS? JavaScript? PHP? HTML5? by tommeke100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To write better Apps and Websites?
    Are these what the kids call programming languages these days?
    It doesn't sound very serious.

    1. Re: CSS? JavaScript? PHP? HTML5? by Beck_Neard · · Score: 2

      > Are these what the kids call programming languages these days?

      Yup. A lot of 'programmers' don't even know non-web languages exist. I wish I was kidding. And a lot of employers don't know either. The whole thing is just really sad.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    2. Re: CSS? JavaScript? PHP? HTML5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well thats what Facebook is made of mostly... I agree, not very serious. Seriously, though, we should stop dividing the world into serious and toy programming languages. Each has its purpose and as such becomes a serious mattter as soon as applied to solve an actual problem. The real question is: how fast (with lowest cost) can you get the job done?

    3. Re: CSS? JavaScript? PHP? HTML5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a kid and please mod parent up.

    4. Re: CSS? JavaScript? PHP? HTML5? by houghi · · Score: 1

      To write better Apps and Websites?
      Are these what the kids call programming languages these days?
      It doesn't sound very serious.

      It is all the NSA needs to get access to your Internet Connected device. That means everything nowadays, including my Linux toaster.

      Yes, I am very sceptical if I see the letters N, S and A. (It isn't paranoia, because that is only when you THINK you are being followed, not when it becomes a fact.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  21. Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    CSS: not a programming language.
    HTML: not a programming language.
    PHP: not a programming language.

    Note: I'm a web developer mostly these days, I write a bucket of each of these. I'm a computer science educated professional and I also write a lot of code in Java and C++. I really like PHP. It is however not a bloody programming language, it's a scripting language.

    1. Re:Programming language? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      So in order to be a programming language it has to be compiled instead of interpreted?

      Where does compiled PHP fit into your world view?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with the parent that CSS and HTML aren't programming languages, PHP and Javascript on the other hand could be called programming languages OR scripting languages.

    3. Re:Programming language? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Well, PHP is a programming language, just not really a general-purpose one.

      Anyways, web-stuff is a small part of programming, and not really an important one as it is pretty limited.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Programming language? by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really like PHP. It is however not a bloody programming language, it's a scripting language.

      I really hate PHP, but what I hate even more is being confronted with this mysterious distinction between "scripting" and "programming" languages.

      A language might be strongly or weakly, dynamically or statically typed. A particular implementation might employ a compiler, a virtual machine or interpreter. These are meaningful distinctions. But what (with the possible exception of a hardware specific control language) does it even mean for a language (as distinct from its implementation) to be a "scripting" language?

      Would PHP cease to be a scripting language if an object code compiler were available for it? Is 'C' a "scripting language" just because it's interpreted? And what about a language which has never actually been implemented, what in the language specification determines unequivocally if that language is 'scripting' or a a 'programming' language?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    5. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CSS: not a programming language. HTML: not a programming language. PHP: not a programming language.

      Note: I'm a web developer mostly these days, I write a bucket of each of these. I'm a computer science educated professional and I also write a lot of code in Java and C++. I really like PHP. It is however not a bloody programming language, it's a scripting language.

      Slashdot used to be an interesting and well informed place. Now, it's filled with idiots like these.

    6. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to have a construct call a "loop" and be able to advance through instructions by itself. Lisp is a programming language. Brainfuck is a programming language. Painbrush isn't, unless you call clicking your mouse to generate pixels "programming the Paintbrush platform". HTML5+CSS3 (without Javascript) is almost there, but you are the computer's clock or it doesn't go anywhere.

    7. Re:Programming language? by DocHoncho · · Score: 2

      That's a distinction without a difference. All "scripting languages" are programming languages, quibbling over whether the particular domain a language is used in makes it a "real" language or not is fodder for arrogant asses who need to make others seem smaller to boost their own pathetic egos.

      Obviously, different languages have different strengths and weaknesses. You wouldn't write an OS kernel in JavaScript, and you wouldn't write system administration automation in C++. Sneering at the domain of one language or another is just useless posturing.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    8. Re:Programming language? by DocHoncho · · Score: 2

      The distinction is determined solely by the prejudices of whomever is bothering to make it. Scripting is a domain in which a programming language is used, not some basic attribute of it. You could use C to write your system automation tools, but it would be a waste of time when a simple Bash script would get the job done quicker and in a far more concise manner. Likewise, you could write your virtualization software in Ruby but its going to be dog slow, and probably full of weird hacks to make shit work.

      Programming languages are for solving problems, and depending on the problem you may need the higher level of abstraction provided by a so-called scripting language. Others are better served by getting as close to the metal as possible. Not every problem requires getting bogged down in the minute details of memory allocation, hardware IRQs, or chipset specific instructions. It might make it fast as hell, but you could easily get lost in the weeds and never end up solving the real problem at hand.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    9. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in order to be a programming language it has to be compiled instead of interpreted?

      Where does compiled PHP fit into your world view?

      The reason PHP isn't a programming language has nothing to do with it being compilable or not. A programming language has to generate a predictable output from a given syntax.
      PHP supports neither anything resembling syntax nor predictable output.

    10. Re:Programming language? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      CSS: not a programming language.
      HTML: not a programming language.
      [/quote]

      CSS and HTML are such devious piles of junk, they should be turing complete by now.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    11. Re:Programming language? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Assembly is just a scripting language for microprocessors. C is just a scripting language for the compiler back-end. The OP did a terrible job of making his case.

    12. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C is just a scripting language for the compiler back-end.

      A program written in C is compiled so people can use it, not for the sake of justifying the existence of the C compiler.

    13. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The distinction is determined solely by the prejudices of whomever is bothering to make it.

      Not quite. The distinction is determined solely by the prejudices of whomever is observing it. In this case, it's you and your personal opinion. It's not a fact.

    14. Re:Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A program written in C is compiled so people can use it, not for the sake of justifying the existence of the C compiler.

      In fact even if the C compiler had never existed programs written in C would be compiled so people can use them ... no wait!

  22. One code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One code to rule them all, one code to find them, One code to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

  23. Which behaviour? by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This program is valid C and, when saved as "test2.java", valid java code. Compilation with the C compiler results in a program that doesn't behave the same way if it were compiled with java:

    //\
    /*
    #include "stdio.h"
    /**///\
    public class test2 {

    //\
    public static
    void main //\
    (String[]a)//\
    /*
    (int argc, char *argv[])//*/
    {
      //\
      System.out.printf("hi, I'm java\n");/*
      printf("hi, I'm C\n");//*/
    }

    //\
    }

    1. Re:Which behaviour? by fisted · · Score: 1

      void main(int argc, char *argv[])

      valid C

      Nope. Not valid C. Valid would be int main(void), int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent), and in some cases int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) (and equivalent).
      Source

    2. Re:Which behaviour? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Depends on the standard. Even "main()" can be valid.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Which behaviour? by fisted · · Score: 1

      Depends on the standard.

      No. None of the C Standards ever had void a valid return type for main, and, frankly all of them (since we're talking standards, that means C89 through C11) give you int main(void) and int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent).
      It's not like i didn't link a source.

      Even "main()" can be valid.

      Yes, C89 allowed leaving away the int, that's called "implicit int". Needless to point out, the return type is still int.

    4. Re:Which behaviour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is not the same as void main as in the GGP's post. Lack of a return type is implicit int not void.

    5. Re:Which behaviour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that's missing is a bash script embedding a vim script to edit and compile itself.

    6. Re:Which behaviour? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      "main()" does not have void as return type, it has "no return type specified". You are also not going back far enough if C89 is the first thing you look at and you are constraining your search too much if you require an "IOS" Standard. There are others around, even if bodies like ISO would probably say they are not standards. Not so.
       

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Which behaviour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5.1.2.1 Freestanding environment
      In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may take place without any
      benefit of an operating system), the name and type of the function called at program
      startup are implementation-defined. Any library facilities available to a freestanding
      program, other than the minimal set required by clause 4, are implementation-defined.

      Note that may doesn't exclude an operating system being present.
      The entry function could be
      struct { double x, y, x; } monkeyballs( _Bool run, _Complex c )
      and still be C99-compliant if that is the execution environment provided.

      Sure, you probably meant a specific environment, but since you have no idea what OP meant you aren't in a position to be nitpicking.

    8. Re:Which behaviour? by fisted · · Score: 1

      You talked about standards, and C89 is the first formal C standard. I'm sorry for your C knowledge if you are indeed oblivious of implicit int (hint: you can and must still return an int from "main([void])".
      Furthermore probably sucks to think that a function taking no parameters like foo(void) and a function taking an unspecified number of parameters like foo() and (void) were the same thing. Your mind might be a bit C++-damaged (in C++, foo() in fact means foo(void)).
      Educate much?
      Consider char (*foo(int))[4];
      What's the type of foo?

    9. Re:Which behaviour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Not valid C. Valid would be int main(void), int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent), and in some cases int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) (and equivalent).

      Fixing that bug does not invalidate the example. The only thing your post adds is pandering to autism.

    10. Re:Which behaviour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freestanding implementations may specify any starting point. It might be main with void-return type or it might be something else. Implementation-defined is not the same as "not valid". Thanks for playing.

    11. Re:Which behaviour? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      "Formal standards" are a small subset of all standards. Your abuse of language does not make you right in any way. As to your Ad Hominem: It clearly shows you are a troll and not interested in the subject here at all. This also marks you as a sadist that gets off on talking down to people. Pathetic.

      As to qualifications and education, without going into specifics, my guess would be that I am so far beyond your level that you cannot even grasp where I am. Nit-picking like you do (and grandstanding about it) is the hallmark of a small and truly limited mind.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Which behaviour? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem with not using formal standards is that it makes each individual implementation or book a standard, and it is impossible to say what a language requires without knowing all the implementations and books. K&R 1st edition can be said to be a standard, but not the only one. Hence, to avoid confusing the issue, people normally consider only formal standards as standards. Also, look at the "//" comments, which were not legal in K&R or C89/C90. A K&R C compiler would barf on the "///*..." part, and a later standard compiler would not recognize "void main", so you're wrong no matter what sort of "standard" you use.

      In any case, the statement was "Not valid C", not "Never has been valid C", and was in contrast to the original claim "valid C", which is false. It could be made into valid C, but that's another statement.l

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Which behaviour? by fisted · · Score: 1

      [...] shows you are a troll [...] also marks you as a sadist [...] I am so far beyond your level [...]

      This makes your original claim less wrong how exactly?
      Since you're so far beyond my level, it should be trivial to point out in which standard, (be it formal or informal, to lower the bar a bit for you) void main() is "valid C".
      Protip.

      That being said, i have nothing to add to sibling's post.

  24. They've re-invented PL/1 by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    And we know how well that worked the last time.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:They've re-invented PL/1 by erice · · Score: 1

      And we know how well that worked the last time.

      Nah. They've re-invented Ada.

      Ada is when they re-invented PL/1.

      Hmm. What comes after strike 2?

    2. Re:They've re-invented PL/1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Larry Wall explained that Perl was "all your favorite programming languages rolled up into one", by which I think he meant (at least) C, Lisp, awk, grep, sed, bourne shell, and Smalltalk. And that was before Perl 5 added loads more stuff.

      However notice the key phrase "your favorite". "Favorite" != "all the best known", e.g. COBOL was excluded from the list of influences.

    3. Re:They've re-invented PL/1 by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but PL/1 was a decent language with atrocious subsets at rediculous prices. The compiler was also large and slow. And I had some problems with it's "intelligent type conversion"s. But you've got to remember what other languages were around at the time. It hadn't learned Object Oriented programming. Etc. But it made safe use of pointers rather easy. I wrote my first Red-Black tree in PL/1 and it was a lot easier both to do and to understand than the one I did later in C.

      OTOH, I must admit that I was coming to it from Fortran and never did pick up the Cobol parts of it, except for picture type variables, which I occasionally found useful. (Doing dynamic format statements in Fortran IV was quite difficult.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:They've re-invented PL/1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still have SAS. Or, I should say, those willing and able to pay SAS Institute's hefty license fees still have SAS, which I learned 35 years ago (and forgot afterwards) but remember thinking, "this is just PL/I with statistical and data management applications."

    5. Re:They've re-invented PL/1 by mrego · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it is PL/I not "PL/1". The 'I' is a Roman numeral. PL/I PL/I PL/I. There never was a PL/1. Got it?

    6. Re:They've re-invented PL/1 by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I've seen it both ways in IBM documentation. It is the numeral one, but I think sometimes they were thinking in Roman Numerals, and other times in Arabic.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  25. How to get rid of the robot spam ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thread has been seriously spammed by bots

    The problem is /. itself can't stop bots from spamming it, and does offer visitors to 'un-friend' the username under which the bots are using

    What I want to know is, is there a way to get rid of all the goddamn spams ?

    1. Re:How to get rid of the robot spam ? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Maybe it should have been written in Wyvern to be more secure?

    2. Re: How to get rid of the robot spam ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the "freaks" list let you automatically lower the perceived score of a poster's posts, so that they automatically fall under your visibility threshold?

    3. Re:How to get rid of the robot spam ? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      What I really want to know is... how the fuck does a registered user post over 20+ posts in under 6 minutes without being filtered by the "you must wait X minutes" filter. This smacks of a slashcode exploit or editor collusion. I'm a registered user with Excellent karma, and I can't post anywhere NEAR that fast.

    4. Re: How to get rid of the robot spam ? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      That's fine and wonderful, but some of us browse at -1 because some people make great points as an AC. This sort of spamming blatantly denies those people a voice.

  26. THESE BLAST BOINTS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

    Too ACCURATE for SAND People!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:THESE BLAST BOINTS by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I don't know that anyone would call the storm troopers "accurate" though...

  27. Urgently needed for /. --- An 'un-friend' feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the very least slashdot should offer us an "un-friend" feature so that we can click on that user tab - in this case, user jelIomizer (3670957) - and then "un-friend" this fucker and all his spams will be forever filtered out of our screens

  28. Why is scripting better than an amalgation of CSS? by Jartan · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand this. Almost every site I go to does the same damn crap with Javascript and all of it could be done with other technologies.

  29. LLVM's logo is a wyvern by Henriok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    May I point out that the LLVM logo is a wyvern? http://llvm.org/Logo.html

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:LLVM's logo is a wyvern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, two legged dragons are not mithical. If you are lucky, they spend most of the time in the kitchen.

  30. Perl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought we already had Perl to combine all programming features into one language.

    1. Re:Perl? by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      Perl was a polyglot before it was cool. Hipster Perl.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  31. This old old nut again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha wait were they actually serious when they called css, html5, php and javascript programming languages? I thought that was a joke because of the triviality of combining them. I am waiting for when I can roll gcode, java, c, c++, c#, python, multiple plc languages, scala, latex, matlab and lisp in one. Because really who considers wordpress site functionality for hardcore services programming, machine learning, graphics, manufacturing automation, sensor, biometric analysis and robotics. This isn't elitism is is just practicality of the interfaces, functionality available through the services management, and security used across different engineering clients. Really people reinventing the wheel and then claiming innovation is disgusting. At least they could of done a web search first. Claiming that more human readable lexical structures harks way back to the COBOL days... back in the 1960's. Lessons learned people. We don't need more "programming without understanding" tools we need education. Last time the accountant went programming they were wondering why their freetext entry could not be saved to a boolean. Nuff said.

  32. Keep away from it by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    It's supposed to help the NSA, and to hurt you in the end.

  33. if it did, that would eliminate my bugs by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't do what the summary says.

    If it did, that would take care of half of my bugs. Within a 30-minute period, I might well work in PHP, Perl, ActionScript, JavaScript, and some other language. A large portion of my errors are things like using empty() in JavaScript. Especially, ActionScript is almost the same as JavaScript, and a lot of Perl is also valid PHP, so when switching between these it's easy to absent-mindedly tap out a line in the wrong language.

    Once upon a time, I used vim syntax highlighting, which doesn't typically catch using the right syntax, but the wrong function name, but does make missed braces and such obvious. Maybe I should right a vim plugin for "wrong language, dummy." It would look for echo (phph vs print (Perl), etc.

    1. Re:if it did, that would eliminate my bugs by istartedi · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of ls.bat and various other little .bat files people put on DOS and Windows machines for obvious reasons.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  34. Re:Urgently needed for /. --- An 'un-friend' featu by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    Jelly's comments suffer in quality when his Ritalin prescription is used up only half way through the month.

    There's a comment threshold feature that effectively eliminates your ability to see low rated comments, which these ravings are rendered to with a quickness thanks to a rather decent moderation scheme.

    Caveat: two or three of the smartest things I've ever read on here were, at least at one point, low threshold.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  35. But does it do FORTRAN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it can't do Fortran, I don't want it.

  36. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's useful, take it and make it your own. It ain't the One Ring. Real technology is not magic that secret cabals can control through arcane "Logicks." If the NSA thinks they could control something as useful as this is advertised, then they're simply deluding themselves. And if it's not very useful, then their nefarious schemes won't matter anyway.

  37. Haskell for webapps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this Haskell but aimed at the CGI domain? I don't understand if the tools that back this language even compile or do something like that for the various parts of the web chain (cgi, web server, database, browser). It would be better if this was a project to bring the disrupt way of life to the www (when NSA is not involved it's a good thought, for many reasons), but remains interesting if it's a project that would challenge in the Dart and Curl arena.

  38. 2 legs versus 4? by chrism238 · · Score: 0

    If dragons are mythical creatures, who's to say that they have 4 legs and not just 2, anyway?

  39. All programming languages? by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Does it do APL ? Forth ? 6502 assembler?

    1. Re:All programming languages? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      They forgot to add the distiction "... your average script-kiddie has ever heard of".

    2. Re:All programming languages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory Blues Brothers quote.

  40. Shit summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I created A.I. with HTML5 and CSS3. Get on my level.

  41. Haxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There already is a language that can generate HTML5/Flash(Actionscript)/NodeJS/PHP/C++/Java/... applications, it's called Haxe, and it's been developed for years (targetting mostly Flash and games, AFAIK), so I'd guess it's mature enough for anything.
    I'm surprised that I couldn't find ANY comment about it in this thread...

  42. OMG! by msobkow · · Score: 1

    They've re-invented PL/1!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  43. Its really too bad... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The NSA's reputation has been annihilated. There are good people that work for such organizations. People that could and do benefit our society on a regular basis. Their institution was simply coopted by irresponsible people that sadly destroyed everything. Its a shame.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Its really too bad... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to reanimate (D)ARPA - the guys that gave us the Internet.

    2. Re:Its really too bad... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      The only NSA employee I'd trust is John Casey.

    3. Re:Its really too bad... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to reanimate Al Gore?

  44. FTFY by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Web applications today are written as a poorly-coordinated mishmash of artifacts written in different languages, file formats, and technologies.

    "...and here's another one!"

    1. Re:FTFY by complete+loony · · Score: 2
      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  45. Wyvern = Wyrm by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    New filesystems and databases might show up as less people trust the same old tame providers that decrypt for the US gov as installed.
    But the good news for the USA is the data will still have connect with say international billing and other US set global standards.
    Thats where a system like this might be fun. You dont have to care what the backend was, just what is sent as known, expected, decrypted data.
    Pulling useful data from new bespoke communications streams will be like setting the old standards. You still get to collect it all at some point in on the NSA's global network no matter how fancy nations and firms get internally.
    Re 'Why didn't this come up with itself before now?" because it was all like ENIGMA 2.0 - plain text for the USA/UK over decades thanks to tame exported crypto that always had a trap or back door.
    Now you have to hunt for fragments of the same messages in strange new net code. The standards are still US set, so you know what your looking for :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  46. View the source-- it's on the JVM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It runs on the JVM. Looks like they merged scala syntax with python formatting. Mostly it's just an interpreter from what I can tell... Mostly innocuous looking.

    If this wasn't on the JVM I'd be more suspicious. Then again, maybe there's a reason they chose the JVM.

    The bigger question is now, do you trust the JVM?

  47. PL/1 for the 21st century? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And look where that is today....

  48. Static typing vs. x86 duck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Initial reaction: they've reinvented VMware player (an easy to use x86 virtualization tool)
    Subsequent reaction: this is more about making syntax extensions to the core language, easy to do. And still preserving static typing.
    So in short . . . anyone who understands it could trivially write extremely obfuscated programs that still run correctly. Primary competitor: C++

    http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/

  49. Jellomizer by weilawei · · Score: 1

    Jellomizer has multiple posts all dated with 7:12 PM. Now, as a Slashdot member over the years, with excellent karma, I can't even post that fast, regardless of what I'm posting. What allows Jellomizer, without the consent of the editors/admins, to post spam repeatedly, without any time delay?

    1. Re:Jellomizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, before you get your panties in a bunch, make sure you know the difference between an 'L' and an 'i'. (Hint: Jeilomizer isn't the same as Jellomizer.)

      IIRC posting speed is limited by IP address (to account for ACs), so the use of multiple IP addresses explains that. You can check slashcode if you're really curious.

    2. Re:Jellomizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF. I replied to your comment, but it looks like it has been deleted. 1) It isn't the real jellomizer. It's someone using upper case i's (I) instead of lower case L's (l) in the username. The id was somewhere in the 3 millions, I think. 2) IIRC comment rate is throttled by IP address, so someone can simultaneously post as many comments as they have IP addresses. Check slashcode if you really need to know.

      The first one at least is a really old trick.

  50. Re:Urgently needed for /. --- An 'un-friend' featu by weilawei · · Score: 1

    Allowing blatant spam to drown AC comments is likely the goal. Still not sure how Jellomizer posts over 20 (20+!!!) posts in under 6 minutes even IF they had excellent karma. This smacks of a slashcode bug or editor collusion. Normal users won't suffer because of the karma bonus, but affected users will include any ACs making relevant points. Allowing the spam to continue unabated will simply result in controversial viewpoints (held legitimately, posted AC to preserve reputation) being drowned out. For further reference, google Forum Slide.

  51. It's a bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That thing is a bot, and the multiple posts went through a bug within the Slashcode which /, never bother to fix

    Furthermore this bot homes in threads that are related to "NSA"

  52. stupid argument by globaljustin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    CSS & HTML5 ***are*** code languages for programming machine behavior

    *at the presentation level*

    it's not an "original gangster" hardcore badass super 1337 C#+! language...it's not complex or "bragable" at a gathering of dorks trying to impress each other...

    but it's symbols that form a code that humans use to 'program' machine behavior...that's a programming language

    just accept it, once and for all, and stop all of you....just stop

    it doesnt make your skillz any less bragable...it's a coding language...mostly visual design oriented...

    ***HTML5&CSS are not threats to your bragging rights***

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:stupid argument by mwvdlee · · Score: 0

      And I guess plain text is also a code language for machine behaviour at the presentation level?
      Or does an ASCII linebreak code not control machine behaviour?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:stupid argument by nabsltd · · Score: 1, Informative

      CSS & HTML5 ***are*** code languages for programming machine behavior

      CSS & HTML5 are data that is interpreted by a computer program. They are not "code languages". The rule of thumb is that without some sort of control structure (if/then/else, loops, etc.), it's just data.

      For HTML, this becomes obvious once you see how many real languages (JavaScript, PHP, ColdFusion, VisualBasic/ASP, etc.) have been created to overcome its lack of control structures.

    3. Re:stupid argument by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      But PRESENTATION (how something looks) and BEHAVIOUR (how something acts) are two different things.

      Saying "programming machine behaviour... at the presentation level" is a nonsensical statement. HTML/CSS define content & presentation. They do not "program behaviour".

      Or as Wiki puts it, "The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions that will automate performing a specific task or solve a given problem". HTML & CSS simply do not qualify. They are certainly computer languages, but they are not computer programming languages.

      And for fuck's sake, having a clear definition of what "programming" means is not about "bragging rights".

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    4. Re: stupid argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is wikipedia, for fuck's sake, not wiki.

    5. Re:stupid argument by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      HTML/CSS define content & presentation. They do not "program behaviour".

      Back when I had to explain this to some students I was tutoring, I basically said that HTML and CSS aren't programming languages, they're input.

      They seemed to understand it after that (they were, apparently, a lot sharper than what passes for slashdotters, these days)

    6. Re: stupid argument by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      It's an abbreviation, for fuck's sake.

      And the full domain [wikipedia.org] is clearly displayed next to the actual link, so... seriously? Do you think anybody was actually confused about what I was linking to?

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  53. I know what they're up to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

  54. sound legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Made by N**! Sound secure and legit, probably no complex backdoor features when you are working on your security encryption modules or whatever.

  55. Re:Urgently needed for /. --- An 'un-friend' featu by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Login, mark him as a foe, his posts will no longer show for you.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  56. Every few years... by Adam+Jorgensen · · Score: 1

    ...someone comes along and tries to re-invent the wheel and gift us with the ability to write in a single "unified" language that crosses the lines demarcating server and client.

    Except it's inevitably a pile of hacky shit that is founded on a basic faulty idea.

  57. What! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds awesome but no way in hell I'd use anything funded by the NSA. :( Whoever accepted that funding is a damn troll, and a good one at that.

  58. all of those and more... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

    I can tell you now, I'll never use it.
    Anthing based upon HTML or CSS is guaranteed to be a unmaintainable crap. Put them together, and you have the largest pile of shite ever !

  59. We all know the saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jack of all trades master of none".

  60. Again a "new lisp" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lisp doing that for so long. Look up for "common lisp reader macro".

  61. "bad press", "interested in security" by sacrilicious · · Score: 2

    Because despite recent bad press, they are interested in security.

    Your post makes various other points that sound reasonable to me, but I have to call out the above line from a couple of angles:

    1) using the phrase "bad press" implies a virtuous subject that has been distorted by a reporting industry with a non-virtuous agenda. NOTHING OF THE SORT has happened to poor lil' NSA here... they FUCKED us, straight up, and got caught red-handed.

    2) Whatever the extent to which the NSA is "interested in security", it might as well be the extent to which a wolf is interested in "keeping chickens alive"... yes the wolf wants a food supply, but that doesn't make the wolf a proponent of livestock. The NSA is all about surveillance at this point; their putting on the badge of promoting security is a means to an end. I won't rehash the extensive list of public standards they secretly compromised to that end; it speaks for itself.

    Again, I think much of what you wrote makes sense, but in this particular line you stray notably too far into something approaching neutrality about the NSA. They are bad people with a bad agenda, and they'll fuck YOU the first chance they get.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:"bad press", "interested in security" by kaputtfurleben · · Score: 1

      "Bad press" doesn't necessarily imply a virtuous subject being distorted, it can also imply articles that are generally interpreted as negative. Journalism is supposed to be impartial after all (though it doesn't always end up that way). And the NSA aren't "bad people with a bad agenda" because "bad" is about as subjective as it gets. They are just not moving toward the same goals that you or others are.

    2. Re:"bad press", "interested in security" by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Form the NSA's perspective, they are interested in security - while the NSA itself has numerous means of getting into a system (including some legal ones!), they don't want China or random hackers to be taking control of systems. They're overall goal is security of the US, so while one arm is doing that by trying to collect all the information, another arm is doing that by locking down everything.

    3. Re:"bad press", "interested in security" by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Form the NSA's perspective, they are interested in security - while the NSA itself has numerous means of getting into a system (including some legal ones!), they don't want China or random hackers to be taking control of systems. They're overall goal is security of the US, ....

      That is why their previous approach to security once exposed became such an enormous own goal. The whole problem with backdoors is that once someone knows about them anyone can use them. And the problem with hacking munitions is that once used, they can be taken up by the victim or others and used as a (dangerous) learning tool to create more new weapons.., - eg stuxnet..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  62. erm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did Neo say? Oh, I remember: No.

  63. Naive predictions by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

    Without having looked at the post or scrutinized the language, here's a couple of guesses:
    1) looks like C: i.e. verbose, vacuous, loopy.
    2) has crappy (i.e. industry-standard) array-handling.
    3) fails to incorporate any of the decades of research about how people approach problems versus how programming languages do.

  64. Re:Urgently needed for /. --- An 'un-friend' featu by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Indeed.

    Though since this is Slashdot, there's virtually zero chance this is the first (or the last) instance of a disgruntled nerd with some coding skill.

    Can't you just picture the editors, worked up into a frenzy this Monday morning, feverishly pursuing a solution?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  65. CSS is a programing language!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been gone too long...

  66. Have you checked out the code? by dnebin · · Score: 1
    module CalculatorType

    import wyv:parser.wyv

    import java:wyvern.tools.parsing.ExtParser
    import java:wyvern.tools.parsing.HasParser
    import java:wyvern.tools.parsing.ParseBuffer
    import java:wyvern.tools.typedAST.interfaces.TypedAST

    type Calculator
    def eval():Int
    metadata:HasParser = new
    def getParser():ExtParser = new
    def parse(buf:ParseBuffer):TypedAST
    val oNum = CalcParser.CalculatorParser.create(buf.getSrcString()).E()
    ~
    new
    def eval():Int = $oNum

    This is supposed to make me feel this is a)secure and b) more bug free?

    1. Re:Have you checked out the code? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      i guess i'm kinda stupid. keeping in mind that it's example code, what's wrong with it exactly?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  67. Wyvern = Wyrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if they control the compiler, they can put any backdoors they want in any code.

  68. raymorris says "oops" again 100's of times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Many bugs are of course a simple "oops"or "l forgot that. I knew, and it slipped my mind". - by raymorris (2726007) on Sunday August 10, 2014 @06:20PM (#47643835)

    2 links show us that much (care to tell us how 'great you are' now, raymorris?) http://slashdot.org/comments.p... where you outright stated blatant falsehoods on Windows, and shut your mouth vs. 100's of facts on hosts files, raymorris? Did you shut your mouth out of politeness (since you said you use that in that post above), or since you had to "eat your FALSE words" again, *trying* to say "oops"? Eating your words != good nutrition raymorris. Having your foot RAM THEM DOWN YOUR THROAT after you stuck your foot in your mouth isn't healthy either, now is it? Nope. Lastly "washing those words down with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & running like Forrest too? Please: I suggest a diet change, as well as to quit 'bragging' on how 'great you are' when you obviously aren't and have been shown to be *anything but* knowledgeable in that link above by someone who illustrates your motives and rather weak technical skills in that link above.

  69. definition is clear by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    presentation is behavior...in fact, if all you have is a monitor **all behavior is presentation**

    if use HTML5 to tell a computer to display a black background when you go to a URL

    OR i could do the same to ****PROGRAM**** the computer to display a white background when you go to a URL

    either way, user enters data (URL in browser) and computer returns a ***PROGRAMMED*** response

    programmed using HTML5 so that the browser knows it's the *background* that is to be black, not another part

    that's programming no matter how you define it...the definition of programming is clear

    what's not clear is why people think HTML & CSS are not programming

    it is...accept it

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:definition is clear by atownsley · · Score: 1

      HTML and CSS are very much akin to Perl. They are interpreted languages, meaning some other compiled application reads them and then decides how to interpret the commands. For lack of a better way of putting it, these are scripting languages.

      In comparison, languages like C#, C++, etc.. are compiled into machine language (yes there are CLRs and other associated binaries).

      This does not diminish the fact that HTML / CSS developers are in fact programming at the presentation layer, but it does mean that HTML / CSS are "scripting" languages (again I am using "scripting" for lack of a better term, and by no means do I mean it to demean the skills required code in HTML / CSS vs. C#).

      From a theoretical perspective there is a difference. From a programming perspective the differences get much much grayer.

      -Andy

    2. Re:definition is clear by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1
      The phrase "programming language" is so vague that it's wide open for interpretation. That's why I'm not going to say you're wrong, which was my first inclination, but simply disagree with you.

      My definition of a programming language is that which is compilable into machine-readable form.

      Now you're going to say, "HTML can be compiled into machine-readable form, it's displayed on your screen, isn't it?!". Yes, the content that originated from HTML (and others) is displayed on your screen, but that's because the browser is interpreting the HTML and then displaying it. Like someone else already responded to you and said, HTML is data, or more specifically structured content.

      An analogy that may help distinguish HTML (and CSS and the like) from what I consider programming languages would be to take printing a certificate using a word processor. The words and images you insert into the word processor isn't a "programming language". It's a "template" which is used by the printer in order to display the content (on paper), just like browsers that use the HTML to display the content (on the screen).
      HTML tags for forms, different types of media, etc. kind of blur the lines a little bit because they instruct the browser to perform certain actions, but that doesn't invalidate the interpretation of HTML as a display template, or data.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:definition is clear by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      well thanks for an intelligent response

      i'm fine with agreeing to disagree, as long as we work to end the argument...it's the noise of the argument that irks me so much...it's a stupid thing to argue about and it hurts our industry b/c people new to "coding" and "programming" are hopelessly lost

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:definition is clear by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      i can agree with everything you said...as I said below to someone else, it's the arguing over linguistic differences of words ad infinitum and how it effects the work environment of coding/programming that gets me hot under the collar

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    5. Re:definition is clear by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      From a theoretical perspective, there is no difference between an interpreted and a compiled language, since any language can be compiled and any can be interpreted. "interpreted" and "compiled" apply to implementations of languages, and there are all sorts of shades in between.

      It might make sense, from a practical point of view, to distinguish between usually compiled and usually interpreted, but this changes over time. Lisp was always interpreted when it was new, and now any decent implementation compiles it (and the compiler needs to be available at run time).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:definition is clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By failing to recognize the difference between *behavior* and *presentation*, you fail to recognize a critical and important distinction. The coder, designer or project manager that fails to compartmentalize the efforts and files that store this information will quickly have a mess on their hands.

  70. then all code is data by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    you can't redefine "coding" by calling everything "data"

    it's instructions for a machine...that's coding...

    you're playing linguistic games & no matter how you do it you're still wrong functionally

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:then all code is data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The difference is that a "programming language" is something that is Turing-complete. Neither HTML nor CSS are. They are mark-up languages - they mark up data in a format that allows it to be machine-processed. JavaScript is a Turing-complete programming language.

  71. no it's symbols by globaljustin · · Score: 0

    I'm honestly astounded at the lack of basic language understanding among /.'ers...

    plain text are ***symbols***

    just like for machine code only when 1 and 0 are used...the 1 & 0 are symbols....doesn't matter how many symbols a language has

    all languages, coding or human or chimpanzee, are made up of symbols

    yes binary could be called a 'language' b/c it's a set of consistent symbols that orders instructions for a machine

    it doesn't have to be human-readable to be code

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:no it's symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes binary could be called a 'language' b/c it's a set of consistent symbols that orders instructions for a machine

      Then alphabet could be called a language because it's a set of consistent symbols that orders instructions for a human. Yes, it is. SHUT UP! Do you see now?

    2. Re:no it's symbols by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      an alphabet is a set of symbols

      some languages have few...others, many

      binary the former, chinese the latter

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  72. Jack of all trades, master of none by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    This is the problem with languages that try to be everything...they aren't really good at anything.

  73. Wyvern will go the way of ADA (RIP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just another attempt to implement a programming language panacea (fantasy). Ada was promised to be the end all language, and it turned into joke, and the Govt had to abandon it. This (Wyvern) will go the same way, as its too abstract in most cases to be successful in the main stream. And with the NSA attachment, most software developers will not touch it. Big brother is still big brother.

    1. Re:Wyvern will go the way of ADA (RIP) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Ada actually has some nice properties, but its sheer number of features makes it difficult to learn and find developers for.

      Committees do tend to catch feature-itus because they try to make everybody on the committee happy. It's difficult to get good pruning of features from committees. They are pretty good at generating ideas, but NOT good at weighing trade-offs by saying "no" to the right things.

  74. Nice one NSA: The Exact Opposite of HTML5 by tomxor · · Score: 1

    CSS + HTML + Javascript is how your HTML file used to look... (A big fucking mess).

    Massive monolithic source files are not helpful. What is the purpose of this?

  75. Isn't this another ADA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That language was supposed to include all possible necessities, and wound up a bloated pile used only by people forced to by government contracts

  76. Google, Apple attempting similar? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Go, swift were supposed to be more global Internet languages than their predecessors.
    Then too, corporate derived projects arent necesarily as good as a celver grad student project.

  77. Polyglot program language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the NSA has a hand in it, let's name it Newspeak.

  78. Terminology Fight! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Where is the official rule that "programming languages" have to be Turing Complete?

    And don't...say HTML5 + CSS3 is turing complete

    They are to a good hacker.

  79. 'turing complete' means nothing by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    i thought we were past this 'turing complete' shit...

    seriously, given the right conditions, I can piss in a jar and it can be 'turing complete'

    Turing did some very good work, obviously, but the whole computability function test has been shown to be reductive and just an abstraction

    machines execute instructions. end.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  80. Programming language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PHP is no less a programming language than Java, for those morons who insist a "programming" language produce machine code...

  81. Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the Racket implementation of Scheme.

  82. And it's called... by kenh · · Score: 1
    --
    Ken
    1. Re:And it's called... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ADA++

      Actually, it does sound like that!
      Although Ada is intended more for critical-mission programs.

  83. Isn't there a reason... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that we keep HTML and CSS separate? And isn't there a reason that we keep javascript light and transportable? Etc, etc?

    I don't the the modern web framework has gotten to its current state because we had to simplify the way things were 10 years ago (btw, we did - it has gotten much simpler with tools like sass, js canvas, webkit, etc). Things are where they're at today because the priorities for dev shops are often (A) Performance of the product (B) Maintainability and scalability of the project behind the product.

    Using something 'easier' like Wyvern will come with a tradeoff for the developers looking to get organized. Also, the code looks like garbage :(

  84. All? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    The news release of -every- new computer language says it will replace all others. It has not happened yet, maybe next century...