...have never concatenated strings in VBScript. The semantics are no different from string concatenation in any other language, but the syntax has a major effect on ease of programming and code readability.
My Beautiful Report Language does extend Scheme semantics, but the way it extends Scheme syntax is arguably the more useful aspect, especially in web/database app development.
Another cool semantic is tail-recursion, a la Scheme. Why don't more languages add tail-recursion?
Tail-call elimination seems to be part of the Sun Java implementation if not part of the spec, based on benchmarking of recursive/non-recursive methods.
The article is complaining about blind advocacy, in which people don't want to hear about advantages of other programming languages and don't want to know how their own might be improved. The article also complains about vague, uninformative, emotional advocacy.
Another useless form of advocacy is trying for a generalized comparison of two languages. There are so many different areas of programming in which the respective languages might have strengths/weaknesses that a meaningful discussion would take ages.
Useful advocacy takes one specific application and debates what language(s) would be best for it. In such a discussion, some amount of emotional attachment to a particular language can be helpful, provided it is translated into specific, informative words.
Emotional attachment to a language motivates people to contribute to such discussions when they might otherwise not care to help out.
A good advocate for a particular language will specifically describe its advantages and not just say "RTFM if you want to know how it works."
Someone deciding on the language(s) for a particular app will get a thorough discussion of the options.
Language implementors will get useful comparisions
A better-suited language for a particular application won't be used if the app programmer doesn't know about it. In this context, advocacy is useful.
I use LaTeX for the company phone directory. When a user goes to the "generate" page, a database-generated latex file is passed through pdflatex, and the user is pointed to the resulting.pdf file. If not for Acrobat it would have been harder to use LaTeX in this context.
The Java language is more cumbersome than necessary for the type of programming usually involved in web apps. Luckily, you don't have to use the Java language to use the JRE and Java objects, thanks to GNU Kawa.
My maze generator on brlewis.com would have been a Project with Java/JSP, but was a quick hack with Kawa/BRL.
It's Sun/Javasoft that jilted the Linux community, not the other way around. Linux releases of Sun's Java hava lagged way behind Solaris/Windows releases. NetBSD has it even worse -- they still can only run Java 1.1.
The GNU project is stepping up its recognition of free Java-based software now that free tools like Kaffe have matured more, so I don't think the free software issue is as big as the article makes it. I can't speak for the embedded issues.
Speaking of results from average programmers, take a look at MBTA Bus Schedules. View an individual schedule. You'll notice the title bar says "Schedule for #routenumber#", clearly the result of a programmer error re. CF syntax. Just because some of the syntax looks like HTML doesn't mean Cold Fusion is really simpler than other languages.
It's unlikely that such an error would have been made had the MBTA used a truly simple language like BRL.
They at least mentioned perl toward the end of the article, but didn't mention BRL at all. BRL is not widely known yet, but provides all the advantages the article mentioned for JSP while embedding a much easier language.
Do mainstream people really "think" c + a*sin(b*c) - d? I think most people see such formulas as weird in either notation. The prefix notation is easier if you read it like this:
(difference (sum c (product a (sin (product b c))) d)
i.e. using words that English normally uses in prefix notation.
I don't see how (begin is less clear than {, or (vector-ref a n) inherently less clear than a[n]. Having everything in the language be of the form (verb object...) is a lot like English.
You'll have to elaborate on your criticism of dynamic typing. AFAIK its only downside is performance, assuming you don't have a compiler that infers types.
A variant of Scheme is already my language of choice for database-driven web apps. The language is as simple or difficult as whatever it is you're trying to do.
I am a Java programmer by profession but am coding my new software in PHP. Why? Rapid development and flexibility
If you aren't afraid of a LISP-like syntax, BRL provides rapid development and lets you use Java objects if you wish, though you don't need to know any Java to use it.
Scheme is already powerful, efficient, and (in the context of web templates) easy. I've used the Kawa Scheme compiler to create a template system that allows for easy integration with Java objects, and is clearly the easiest template engine to use for SQL integration. Thanks to the kawa scheme compiler, templates are compiled directly to JVM bytecodes for speed.
Slashdot Mirror
...have never concatenated strings in VBScript. The semantics are no different from string concatenation in any other language, but the syntax has a major effect on ease of programming and code readability.
My Beautiful Report Language does extend Scheme semantics, but the way it extends Scheme syntax is arguably the more useful aspect, especially in web/database app development.
Tail-call elimination seems to be part of the Sun Java implementation if not part of the spec, based on benchmarking of recursive/non-recursive methods.
The article is complaining about blind advocacy, in which people don't want to hear about advantages of other programming languages and don't want to know how their own might be improved. The article also complains about vague, uninformative, emotional advocacy.
Another useless form of advocacy is trying for a generalized comparison of two languages. There are so many different areas of programming in which the respective languages might have strengths/weaknesses that a meaningful discussion would take ages.
Useful advocacy takes one specific application and debates what language(s) would be best for it. In such a discussion, some amount of emotional attachment to a particular language can be helpful, provided it is translated into specific, informative words.
A better-suited language for a particular application won't be used if the app programmer doesn't know about it. In this context, advocacy is useful.
I use LaTeX for the company phone directory. When a user goes to the "generate" page, a database-generated latex file is passed through pdflatex, and the user is pointed to the resulting .pdf file. If not for Acrobat it would have been harder to use LaTeX in this context.
You can get it here if webappcabaret is up, which it generally is these days. Otherwise e-mail me.
The Java language is more cumbersome than necessary for the type of programming usually involved in web apps. Luckily, you don't have to use the Java language to use the JRE and Java objects, thanks to GNU Kawa.
My maze generator on brlewis.com would have been a Project with Java/JSP, but was a quick hack with Kawa/BRL.
It's Sun/Javasoft that jilted the Linux community, not the other way around. Linux releases of Sun's Java hava lagged way behind Solaris/Windows releases. NetBSD has it even worse -- they still can only run Java 1.1.
The GNU project is stepping up its recognition of free Java-based software now that free tools like Kaffe have matured more, so I don't think the free software issue is as big as the article makes it. I can't speak for the embedded issues.
[see subject]
Speaking of results from average programmers, take a look at MBTA Bus Schedules. View an individual schedule. You'll notice the title bar says "Schedule for #routenumber#", clearly the result of a programmer error re. CF syntax. Just because some of the syntax looks like HTML doesn't mean Cold Fusion is really simpler than other languages.
It's unlikely that such an error would have been made had the MBTA used a truly simple language like BRL.
They at least mentioned perl toward the end of the article, but didn't mention BRL at all. BRL is not widely known yet, but provides all the advantages the article mentioned for JSP while embedding a much easier language.
I don't see how (begin is less clear than {, or (vector-ref a n) inherently less clear than a[n]. Having everything in the language be of the form (verb object ...) is a lot like English.
You'll have to elaborate on your criticism of dynamic typing. AFAIK its only downside is performance, assuming you don't have a compiler that infers types.
A variant of Scheme is already my language of choice for database-driven web apps. The language is as simple or difficult as whatever it is you're trying to do.
If you aren't afraid of a LISP-like syntax, BRL provides rapid development and lets you use Java objects if you wish, though you don't need to know any Java to use it.
Scheme is already powerful, efficient, and (in the context of web templates) easy. I've used the Kawa Scheme compiler to create a template system that allows for easy integration with Java objects, and is clearly the easiest template engine to use for SQL integration. Thanks to the kawa scheme compiler, templates are compiled directly to JVM bytecodes for speed.
See http://brl.sourceforge.net for details and examples.