Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Programming Language Gurus Converge on 'Curry On' Conference (curry-on.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the assembly dept.

Videos are now online from this week's Curry On conference, which incuded talks by programming pioneers Larry Wall and Matthias Felleisen, as well as speakers from Google, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and Oracle. Dave Herman from Mozilla Research also talked about building an open source research lab, while Larry Wall's keynote was titled "It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Fine."

Billing itself as a non-profit conference about programming languages and emerging computer-industry challenges, this year's installment included talks about Java, Rust, Scala, Perl, Racket, Clojure, Rascal, Go and Oden. Held in a different European city each year, the annual conference hopes to provoke an open conversation between academia and the larger technology industry.

88 comments

  1. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people have legacy Perl to maintain you insensitive clod!

  2. Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by gweihir · · Score: 0

    But a lot of projects that primarily feed egos and serve to prevent people from getting generally useful skills (so they cannot easily change jobs).

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Now you made me wonder...which ones are those two? :) (I admit that I'm personally increasingly leaning towards general language implementation ideas and perhaps metalanguages that can be easily ported on top of different platforms so that one didn't have to get skills that are less-than-generally useful and could still easily change jobs while retaining the ability to create useful structures in languages that generally don't include them - without having to switch your entire platform, which is often not desirable, or having to press your employer for a platform switch, which is often unlikely to succeed.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We've botched it in software, now what?" 'Oh! I know! We'll stack another layer of software on top! That'll just fix everything!' "Yeah, that'll work. We'll open-source it and be famous!"

      Anyway, have you learned lisp yet? Or at least FORTH? Both are fairly easily implementable in something else if you have to and then you have a fully-fledged programming language powerful enough to implement the missing parts on top of itself. Moreover, it'll stop you from reinventing them without having seen the original.

      Or, you know, don't, and reinvent the wheel badly, and get called a "pioneering guru".

    3. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by gweihir · · Score: 1

      If you need to ask, then you cannot understand the answer. Or maybe you are just trolling?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just my take. That is why I am back to C for anything but glue-logic. All that clutter more "modern" languages add is just not worth it. True, I currently use Python3 as glue, and the C I write is somewhat OO as it is Python modules, but that is it. Most "revolutionary" trends in programming languages are just not fit for actual production use.

      Of course, most programmers are not fit to write productive code either (the utter crap I see when doing code-reviews is incredible), but that is another story.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did. But there's probably better/more-compatible-with-the-rest-of-the-world ways of doing the same. Mind you, they don't have to involve "reinventing the wheel badly": for example, META-II and TREE-META are both as old as Forth, and almost as old as Lisp.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      and the C I write is somewhat OO

      Have you read Ian Piumarta's paper on open extensible object models? There's some food for thought for C programmers.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Why would I have to be trolling if I'm asking which two of "Java, Rust, Scala, Perl, Racket, Clojure, Rascal, Go and Oden" you as an individual consider relevant? Two different people can look at the same thing from two different angles. That's why multiple-criteria decision analysis has arisen as a discipline in the first place.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is research. Relevance to fashion is not important. All of the "relevant" languages got their start from people researching and using a wide variety of programming languages.

    9. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that clutter more "modern" languages add is just not worth it.

      Like what in say, for example Swift?

      It's easy to just say 'im not going to learn anything new because everything new is crap' but most of those people are just old and set in their ways and that is a convenient excuse. Of course I'm not saying we should always abandon everything in favour of the next big thing either, but to say everything that isn't glue code should be written in C smacks of ignorance.

    10. Re: Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. Java is a top 3 used language and has been around a long time. It is obviously 1.

      Perl is a top 15 language and has been around a long time. Though declining in popularity, it is 2.

      All the other languages are niche languages around 40-60 in most used. There is much doubt about which ones will still be around 5 years from now in this group.

    11. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What do you do for database queries then?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hack the DB server and inject code into its process. This ensures compatibility between all types of data stores; many of them are just a forest of B trees on the inside. There is also a security benefit: if an attacker takes over an account on your DB, you still have access to it.

      You know what? This is actually starting to sound like a good way to do things. That probably means it's time to get away from the keyboard. Captcha: sorrows

    13. Re: Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is much doubt about which ones will still be around 5 years from now in this group.

      Yep. Clearly, Java devs are getting sick of Java (see Scala, Clojure), and as you said, Perl is declining. My bet for the long haul, is on Scala eating the Java community, and Go, just because it's a non-JVM language with the backing of a massive corporation.

      What I would really like to see, is: Clojure taking the JVM and smacking some real FP sense into the OO zealots, without throwing away interfaces; and Rust improving its safe mode story and then taking over the low level landscape.

      Captcha: derision

    14. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You know what? This is actually starting to sound like a good way to do things.

      The drawback is the maintenance time it would take, as new versions of the DB come out. That is absolutely the only drawback I can see.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Give it up, man. He's basically bitter that the world is largely moving on from C. He seems to be on every language thread telling everyone how superior he is for using older, less powerful tools.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No, but from a quick glance now, the way to do it is rather obvious. The Python OO model also transfers fully to embedded C components. Still nice that somebody wrote this up.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by gweihir · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? That depends on the database, obviously. Usually it will be the Simple (but stupid) Query Language, but some other models exist. Databases are not complicated or powerful enough to really matter language-wise and a query language hardly qualifies as programming language, far too limited. Databases can just get large and they have (if sane) ACID out of the box, but that is about it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hehehehe, funny. Have looked at the TIOBE index lately? It may not be very accurate, but nothing in the TIOBE top-5 is going away anytime soon, let along the long-term 2nd place.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The world is moving away. It's slow, and not going to move completely away for a loooong time, but C used to be the #1 king of the hill. It's now relegated to niches, albeit large ones. You can almost certainly avoid learning anything new until you retire, but nonetheless that does not make you superior for only using C.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Elm.

    21. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I mean the C APIs to databases are a pain to use a lot of times (ribs2 does a good job with it, but not many people know about that)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by jon3k · · Score: 1

      'Oh! I know! We'll stack another layer of software on top! That'll just fix everything!'

      Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

      "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection"

    23. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by aethelrick · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, most embedded development is done using C especially on low power devices. We are getting more of these devices added to our world every day, not less. The PC on the other hand is in decline in terms of numbers. I don't think the world is moving away from C, but I do think that C is in decline on the PC.

      Not much competes with C in the embedded space. While Java is having some limited success on the bigger embedded systems; Those that have enough space to install it and still have room left for your code that is. As I stated earlier, embedded development is growing rapidly. With regard to C on the PC though... it's easier to work in other more forgiving languages at the expense of having slower code because modern machines are so fast very few people actually care that much about the overhead. I think the basic problem is that our industry is has a large number of computer programmers that are quite bad at what they do. We found out through painful experience that we don't want these people working in C because the damage they can do in it is very large and costly, compared to the damage they can do in something like Java where idiocy is much easier to detect early in a project.

    24. Re:Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, most embedded development is done using C especially on low power devices.

      A mix. Some is done in C. In part that's due to a lack of a good C++ compiler. AVRs and Arms support C++. My shitey little 8051 only supports C (lol IAR making class a synonym for struct does not a C++ compiler make), so I write in C.

      However, many of the shitey 8051s are being superceded by ARMs. I'd love to switch, but we're about to enter production so it's not worth it now. The next version will use the ARM. It's lower power too, so better battery life, and possibly cheaper overall since it is more heavily integrated.

      Not much competes with C in the embedded space.

      Apart from C++, that's true.

      I don't think the world is moving away from C, but I do think that C is in decline on the PC.

      OK fair enough. C's in heavy decline everywhere except embedded and for some reason Linux userland apps. But hell, have you ever seen glib code? Holy fuck why would anyone ever subject themsleves to that, it's bloody mental. Imagine writing code in CPython exclusively. Madness.

      With regard to C on the PC though... it's easier to work in other more forgiving languages at the expense of having slower code because modern machines are so fast very few people actually care that much about the overhead.

      Forgiving? There's C++ which is precisely as fast in theory and in practice often faster, and supports vasty richer abstractions. And of course there's Rust. It has mostly the same machine model as C and C++, so one would expect it to reach the same speed soon. That will of course depend on the quality of the front (and middle?) end of the compiler, and the back end is shared with C and C++ compilers.

      That's also not a hypothetical "java is 10x faster than before and THIS year it just edges out C++ (like every other year)" bullshit that you get. Rust's machine model allows exactly the same optimizations as C.

      One of the design goals of Rust is to be as fast as C++.

      We found out through painful experience that we don't want these people working in C because the damage they can do in it is very large and costly, compared to the damage they can do in something like Java where idiocy is much easier to detect early in a project.

      Ain't that the case!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. how about conference with relevant languages by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things. Of those languages in summary, Java is used. Perl used to be but Larry has been doing wonderful job of letting it die and few would choose that for new infrastructure. the rest are fads

    1. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things.

      The fallacy of appealing ad populum applies to programming languages as well. Not to mention the fact that lots of people who are not doing things "how the world at large does [it]" are not exactly going to be talking about it a lot if they find themselves in a competitive environment. Why give your competition ideas? I mean, the probability of your competition "getting it" is often very low but still non-zero.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no new language is going to give competitive features to a product. Mature libraries, analysis and debugging tools and standard approaches to common problems instead should be primary concerns of a new business or new product idea.

    3. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same reasoning in civil engineering would translate to saying that you only need a shovel and a mason's trowel to build anything. Yes, you can, the "competitive features" like improved insulation or just fashionable architecture don't depend on how you put the parts in place. But more powerful tools allow you to do more things in limited time.

      Having said that, building those tools is complicated enough so it takes too much time and isn't generally done, be it building languages, debuggers, or whatever tool you need, basically equally. You do correctly, if obliquely refer to a well-identified problem of insufficient tooling even in those languages that are generally considered sufficiently expressive to not require additional syntax or semantics. Interestingly, this is independent of whether you're working in a more specialized language that has the concepts in question embedded in its core primitives, or in a less specialized language that requires you to first build these higher concepts (of interest to you) out of its lower-level constructs. It would even appear that the problem is roughly of the same scope regardless of whether you're building a new language (in the traditional "lexical-syntactic" sense, not just in terms of new APIs) or not, with the "standard approach" you're mentioning involving using non-specific analysis and debugging tools that are all-too-often only of marginal benefit because they don't provide the views that a large system might require to be more easily comprehended or modified, for example, by a newcomer. Building improved tools unfortunately requires some kind of model regardless of whether the model is explicit in form of another language or merely implicit in the code of the tools and the patterns of use of some API you're building. But the designers of programming environments can't possibly anticipate all the domains you might want to use their environment for, so even if you decide not to use or develop another language for an application, unfortunately, not much changes, there are still tooling problems to be solved. You've merely shifted the burden from one kind of tools to another kind of tools, and one could successfully argue that accessible techniques for building better tools (to bring them into the realm of what Eric Raymond refers to as "casual programming" in TAoUP) are highly desirable for overall productivity.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Wow. That was so nonsensical. Complete gibberish. The point is mature libraries and tools are more important than ego-driven language masturbation.

    5. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What a way to completely miss the point. You're not even disagreeing with me!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The world won't get much done if there aren't eggheads discovering new ways to do things. You do realize Slashdot is news for nerds, right? So arguments about "not cool enough for me" don't hold a lot of weight.

    7. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a point? 110010001000 wasn't the only one who missed it. Maybe it's all the rest of us, not you.

    8. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it sounds to me like you're afraid of learning new languages.

    9. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by radish · · Score: 2

      Well I guess different people have different opinions about what is "relevant" and a "fad".

      I haven't seen any Perl in production use in a number of years - although I'm sure it exists, for me and my career it's way past being "relevant". I was using it 20 years ago...

      Scala is highly relevant, it's a fantastic language which I've been using professionally for over 2 years to great effect. I've built infrastructures serving millions of requests per second using it - and I'm not alone - Scala is widely used at Twitter, LinkedIn, Netflix, FourSquare, AirBnB, Apple, ... the list goes on.

      Java is widely used, of course, but it's kind of dull at this point. Relevant but there's not much new to talk about at a conference.

      Rust is .. interesting. I don't think it's ready for production yet, but it has some really interesting ideas, which even if they don't make it in the form of Rust could be seen in future languages. Very relevant to discuss and think about.

      Go is spreading very quickly - I personally don't care for it but in my last job we had ops people who swore by it (I just swore at it). Extremely relevant right now as so many places are evaluating it, plus, obviously, the Google link.

      The others - clojure, racket, & co are niche for sure. I don't think they even qualify as fads because (with the possible exception of clojure) no-one's really using them - and fad implies something is popular.

      I do think they could have included F# though, that's a really interesting language that's starting to pick up steam in the commercial world. And Swift, while not that revolutionary, is bringing some new stuff to the masses and spreading very fast.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    10. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things.

      Wow you actually have just dropped down as far as using anti intellectual insults. This is supposed to be news for nerds, you know. Since when did anti intellectualism become a nerd thing?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      As an L2 speaker, perhaps I could have expressed it more clearly, but I don't know how. Unfortunately I can't help 110010001000 in any other way than by asking him to carefully reread the text once again and to try to comprehend it. I can't make him succeed at it, though.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      I'm definitely not afraid of learning new languages, but if by "new" you mean "recently created", those very often bring little or nothing novel relative to what was already known. For example, people have already compared Go to Algol 68. In a way, it's a favorable comparison, but it's also damning with faint praise. Otherwise...no. Currently looking into APL.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by epine · · Score: 1

      niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things. Of those languages in summary, Java is used. Perl used to be but Larry has been doing wonderful job of letting it die and few would choose that for new infrastructure. the rest are fads

      No, no, and no.

      Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
              — Edsger W. Dijkstra

      I've never 100% agreed with this quote. A big chunk of computer science is about building better telescopes; and so it is with astronomy, too, that a not-insignificant part involves building better computers.

      However, the real currency of the world is ideas.

      Innovative computer languages express ideas about how the discipline of programming might be made better. People who study computer languages do so to prioritise ideas over mere skills, not without good motivation.

      There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.
                      — Peter Drucker

      This sentiment motivated one of the all time best ideas in computer science.

      The real hero of programming is the one who writes negative code.
                      — Douglas McIlroy

      Unfortunately, we could have learned this lesson centuries sooner, but for some narcissistic revisionism.

      If I have seen further, it is by standing on giant moraines of revolutions discarded.
                      — Isaac Newton (first draft)

      If I have seen further, it is by standing on the boulders of giants.
                      — Isaac Newton (second draft)

      Larry's glacial pace may yet reshape the landscape in a profound way. Perhaps Camelia is the moulder of giants. Time will tell.

    14. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you shouldn't hide the point in a fucking huge wall of text, you retarded manga addict?

    15. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Since when did anti intellectualism become a nerd thing?

      Since Joe_Dragon signed up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's not a fallacy, it's true. How many lines of Rust are in use compared to C or even COBOL?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You think you're an expert on logical fallacies, which you aren't. But you just hit the excluded middle bang dead centre.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, the same reasoning in civil engineering would be Caterpillar holding a seminar bulldozing the caterpillar way

    19. Re:how about conference with relevant languages by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Nope, most languages are just rehashes of same old ideas. java is warmed over C++ and gives NOTHING more, for example.

      JavaSCRIPT on the other hand is a step backwards giving somewhat less power.

      In fact let's just skip the other languages and say the "improvements" to the most languages are just additions that make them slightly more approach the power LISP had decades ago.

  4. perl is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    trying to figure out why someone would go to a conference that includes it?

    1. Re:perl is dead by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Perl is quite alive. Just use the last non-drug fueled version (5.x) and you will not have to deal with pink elephants.

      Although 6.x Perl serves as a nice example of the "Second System Effect" (a bit delayed) and hence is quite useful as an example of how to not do things.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:perl is dead by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, probably so that you could go there and tell them in person. /s

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:perl is dead by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Perl is quite alive. Just use the last non-drug fueled version (5.x)

      But you don't need to go to a conference for that. I use perl all the time for quick throw-away scripts, because I can do a lot with minimal typing. But I would never use it for a project that needed to be maintained, or for anything over 100 lines of code. I also assiduously avoid any new features, which is the focus of conferences.

    4. Re:perl is dead by gweihir · · Score: 1

      But you don't need to go to a conference for that.

      No argument on that. Perl 5.x is basically finished. "Improving" something finished makes it usually much worse. The exceptionally long time Perl 6 has been in the works is a valuable clue.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. And then the Google representative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...gave Larry Wall a copyright strike for IP infringement; after which, Larry was unable to do any live conversations and was limited to giving 15 minute prepared speeches for the rest of the conference.

  6. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some people have legacy Perl to maintain you insensitive clod!

    Some of us still code new stuff in Perl, you doubly insensitive clod!!

  7. More useful than current by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Going to a technical conference for a language that is popular or that you know well does not offer that much value, because almost anything you learn there could have been learned online quicker.

    Going to a conference filled with niche languages or higher level ideas is great because it's much more mind-expanding, and even if ideas seem esoteric there's always some interesting twist you can take back into languages you know better or are more practical to work with. It also helps keep you from getting too pigeon-holed by ignoring changes in the world around you, as I see many object-oriented die-hards doing...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:More useful than current by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but languages are just rehashes of the same ideas, so no mind expansion to be had there. there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others

    2. Re:More useful than current by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's about latency. If you're in the same room with someone and any communication takes seconds and you can pick someone's brain with regards to things you're interested in, and perhaps get some new ideas and immediately check whether someone else has already tried them, that could save a lot of time for some ideas to be incubated that might take otherwise more time "brain-offline" to develop. Yes, learning things that have already matured can often be done more easily online at your own pace. That's probably not what conferences should be about. Oh, and of course, there's also the food. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:More useful than current by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others

      Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly? (But I agree that the greatest value today may not lie in the development of new completely general languages but perhaps in finding ways to formulate ideas in specific application domains more concisely while keeping readability so that you could achieve more complex but beneficial things using less brain time, including doing the same (in a circular fashion) to the development of such languages in order to simplify this process it actually made sense to do in practice and didn't involve getting a PhD in computer science. The world indeed doesn't need another rehash of C++ or Lisp.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:More useful than current by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others

      Not only that, it can be done with worst-case constant overhead simply by implementing the new language using an old language first.

      See, I know my algorithmic complexity theory too.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    5. Re:More useful than current by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?

      Because we're lazy like that.

      Conventional wisdom has it that it really doesn't matter because all computing resources are essentially free, so we're free to waste them with wild abandon except in the few percent of cases where we need us some fancy footwork and fastpathing to get decent performance. This leads to a situation where my desktop of fifteen years ago with 64MB and a 233MHz pentium then did just about the same tasks (browsing, writing, programming, compiling), about as well this here machine with 4GB and 2.4GHz core 2 duo. I had to upgrade a few times just to "get with the times" but 97% of what that did was get me function back that had gotten lost in the bloat. Me, I'd like to see a little less waste.

    6. Re:More useful than current by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      but languages are just rehashes of the same ideas

      So... which existing language is Rust's memory model a rehash of?

      there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others

      That's only true in the fully qualified version:

      there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others given unlimited time to implement.

      Once you admit that limited resources exist, then yes, there's plenty we can do in new languages that we can't do in old one.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:More useful than current by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's worst-case polynomial overhead (turing machines aren't capable of random access, most languages are, there's no way this would translate to constant overhead).

    8. Re:More useful than current by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I was talking about space overhead, but okay, sure.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    9. Re:More useful than current by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... which existing language is Rust's memory model a rehash of?

      ITYM "ownership model." Rust's memory model is still not formalized in situations involving safe/unsafe mixtures and similar corner cases.

      But I know what you're hinting at, and I'm tired of /.'s "nothing new under the sun, get off my lawn" brigade, too.

    10. Re:More useful than current by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?

      Half joking, Half serious: Who says we're not?

      Aside, because a developer's time costs more then the CPU's time -- THAT is why we use higher level languages. It comes down to price. We trade quality for iteration time. Most businesses can't _afford_ to justify writing in assembly. It is far cheaper to just hire a few recent college grads and have them bang out code in the latest iHipster language. High Level language are good enough.

      /sarcasm Who cares how inefficient & bloated the code is we can "solve" the 80% of the problem. Who cares if it takes 4 GB of RAM to run and 2 minutes to startup!? This mentality of apathy "I don't care about the user's experience" is why we have crap like computers being 1,000 time faster but tasks still take longer!

      > The world indeed doesn't need another rehash of C++ or Lisp:

      Sooo when is C++ going to modules?? You know, something every other modern language has had for, you know, decades. Why do you have to copy/paste a function definition header to forward declare it when the compiler could do this automatically??

      When you have idiots on the C++ design committee -- a native binary literal took DECADES to add, "A Proposal to Add 2D Graphics Rendering and Display to C++", etc. I would argue it certainly does. That's why we have D, etc.

      Every year C++ piles on more and more crap. It needs a simplification, not more over-engineering.

      As someone who has worked on a PS3 C++ compiler there are two jokes amongst compiler writers:

      There are 2 things wrong with C++.
      1. It's design,
      2. It's implementation

    11. Re:More useful than current by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I agree with the waste (with its existence, that is), but I don't think assembly coding is the solution. That's a problem with the mind set. Not using assembly is not the thing that wasted most of those resources, that could account at best for something like a factor of five to ten.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:More useful than current by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So... which existing language is Rust's memory model a rehash of?

      I can't answer in depth since I haven't looked at Rust's memory model in depth yet but the things I've seen so far sort of reminded me of linear type systems and their ilk, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was very few new ideas in it, if any.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:More useful than current by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      ITYM "ownership model." Rust's memory model is still not formalized in situations involving safe/unsafe mixtures and similar corner cases.

      Yep, that is what I meant!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:More useful than current by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I meant ownership model as AC pointed out.

      I can't answer in depth since I haven't looked at Rust's memory model in depth yet but the things I've seen so far sort of reminded me of linear type systems and their ilk, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was very few new ideas in it, if any.

      Yeah, that's the right direction. But nothing new is rather unfair. There's a difference between type theory and a practical, fast language with those types in it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  8. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by guruevi · · Score: 1

    With Perl 7 being released, Perl is young and hip again and actually I've seen an uptick in new upstart projects using them just because they can. Releasing open source projects in obscure languages is the newest trick to keep the host companies involved with expensive licensing/support agreements.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  9. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the exception of Java nobody uses those other langugues.

    Funny that, some of us out here use a subset of the other languages listed, and not Java.

    I've considered this carefully, and have taken my time coming to this conclusion (I've too long a history with the language - from the dark near prehistoric times of the Alpha and Beta releases onwards), but I'd go so far as to say I truly detest Java..won't code in it myself anymore, and every time I'm forced to look at someone else's Java code..

     

  10. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that you Larry Wall?

  11. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As with (almost) any language, it depends on who wrote it and/or the companies coding standards. Java is a perfectly capable/readable language when written correctly.

  12. A Type is Worth a Thousand Tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This looks like worth a watch... https://youtu.be/q1Yi-WM7XqQ?t=6m20s (actual content starts 6:22 into the video).

  13. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Masochist!

  14. Re: Code of conduct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right about that. I'd thought about going to a small security conference for a while and when it finally came time to register I abandoned it precisely because of the stupid code of conduct. This is a setting where you'll be included if you're good and for no other reason.

    I work with smart women and stupid men and vice versa. I respect the smart ones and wish the dumb ones would go away. Gender, race, whatever don't matter but culture and fit do. At a place of work you fit in with the culture or you're gonna have a bad time. Same at conferences. Trying to force others who built the very thing you want in on to conform to your expectations so you don't get your little feelings hurt has got to stop.

  15. Sad day by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    The main replies to this story seem to be basically hatin' on people who want to do something interesting with their spare time. How horrifying that people want to do something new and better rather than stick to whatever was state-of-the-art in the 1970s.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  16. Re:Wow what a useless conference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For most people, avoiding the standard libraries of a language is not an option, and even if you can the results won't be exactly "readable" to others who are used to the standard library.
    And the standard library already suffers from extreme verbosity that might be good to beginners, but make it hard to work without an IDE.
    Add to it the chaos of different build systems, many with little concern about usability without IDE (at least for editing, though most of the time even for just compiling the command-line interface is often badly designed and worse documented).
    Then the weird interaction between package names and project directory structure, which is an extra huge pain because it is also affected by whether the underlying filesystem is case-sensitive (so much for portability of Java, lots of projects designed under Windows can't even be compiled on Linux without a lot of fixes because people just made letters upper-case at random with no consistency).
    Ok, I admit Java is a usable language, but it doesn't go up to "good" or "nice to use".

  17. What does WAT mean, Larry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Every DWIM has a WAT" is such a foundational concept of Perl6 that nobody is allowed to know exactly what those abbreviations might stand for?

    This is a great example of the failure of the semantic web; search engines are overwhelmed by the teens typing "wat" on their cell phones, so you can't find Larry's use of WAT with a simple search; but Larry doesn't know that, because (unless he's made a significant effort to prevent this) his search results are customized by his prior search history and do not represent what others can see. It literally doesn't *occur* to him to explain it, so his use of language is nullified by choice of terms.

    1. Re:What does WAT mean, Larry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DWIM is "do what I mean"

      WAT is ... apparently the opposite. I'm not finding much by searching. My best guess is that it means 'weird-ass thing', but it could just be the 'wat' from some image meme for all I know.

      I was redirected to the following talk for an explanation of WAT, but I can't view it since it requires some plug-in.

      https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

  18. Curry on? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Curry on? Was the name chosen because it's mainly for H-1Bs?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Curry on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute -- but no.

  19. and Linus' view ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the Linux kernel written in C? Seems that at least one luminary thinks it's still relevant.

    1. Re:and Linus' view ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Isn't the Linux kernel written in C? Seems that at least one luminary thinks it's still relevant.

      Ys, but that luminary has shown he doesn't actually know enough about C++ to have an opinion on it! Or at least his biases are so strong and lacking in perspective that they're clearly overwhelming any technical argument.

      Anyway now that GCC has gone the way of C++, the existence of Linux is dependent on C++ albeit indirectly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  20. Re:Code of conduct by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Why. Were you planning on acting like a sexist douche at a conference and now you can't get away with it anymore?

    Sounds like you need to cast a vote for the insane clown posse guy in November to vent a little of that hormonal rage.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?