One project that deserves a look here is the LiteratePrograms project. The goals are somewhat different from Rosetta, with more emphasis on teaching of algorithms and the ability to run code directly from the wiki.
As one who has worked on a couple of multi-language problem sets (SICP in other programming languages and OO Shapes), I can appreciate the amount of work it takes. We can always use more sites that teach programming in various unique fashions.
The problem with the metric system is that it is founded upon the evolutionary accident that the number of human digits is 10. If we really want a measuring system that is friendly to computers (and other extraterrestial lifeforms that we might encounter), then we should drop the baroque decimal systems and go to Base 2. But it is most likely that scientists will resist efforts to go to a more universal measuring system. In the meantime, those of use that work with computers have to constantly translate from decimal-to-binary and binary-to-decimal in order to get our jobs done.
If we are talking about embeddable scripting languages and Lisp is the point of comparison, I'd prefer Lua over JavaScript, Python and Ruby. Of these four languages, only Lua has tail-call-optimization (though JavaScript 2.0 is slated to have TCO). For a direct comparison to Lisp, I've translated the first chapter of SICP in these scripting languages (as well as some other FP languages): SICP in other PLs
Although I agree with much of what you are saying, I was wondering how you reconcile the following two statements:
Since language is such an important tool throughout an individual's life, being easy to learn is probably the least important aspect of a good language.
and
Just the type of words you will learn first (becuase they are considered the most important) will limit the type of thought possible when communicating with others.
It sounds as if being easy to learn is quite an important facet of a language to the extent that the earliest use of a language will produce the greatest and most influential effects.
Saw the movie last night with my 3 kids. Not particularly impressed but there were some funny moments here and there.
The one thing I did notice was the obvious references to 2001. The way the meteor gets implanted into the ground makes it look like a monolith. The clean room suits look like the space suits that Dave wore. And the evolved guerillas look a lot like those apes near the beginning of 2001.
Any other 2001 references that I missed?
Slashdot Mirror
One project that deserves a look here is the LiteratePrograms project. The goals are somewhat different from Rosetta, with more emphasis on teaching of algorithms and the ability to run code directly from the wiki.
As one who has worked on a couple of multi-language problem sets (SICP in other programming languages and OO Shapes), I can appreciate the amount of work it takes. We can always use more sites that teach programming in various unique fashions.
The problem with the metric system is that it is founded upon the evolutionary accident that the number of human digits is 10. If we really want a measuring system that is friendly to computers (and other extraterrestial lifeforms that we might encounter), then we should drop the baroque decimal systems and go to Base 2. But it is most likely that scientists will resist efforts to go to a more universal measuring system. In the meantime, those of use that work with computers have to constantly translate from decimal-to-binary and binary-to-decimal in order to get our jobs done.
If we are talking about embeddable scripting languages and Lisp is the point of comparison, I'd prefer Lua over JavaScript, Python and Ruby. Of these four languages, only Lua has tail-call-optimization (though JavaScript 2.0 is slated to have TCO). For a direct comparison to Lisp, I've translated the first chapter of SICP in these scripting languages (as well as some other FP languages): SICP in other PLs
Thanks,
Chris
Also powers Lambda the Ultimate: The Programming Languages Weblog.
Shameless plug from LtU contributing editor.
Waiting for the challenge to bring job security. :-)
Start here on your journey through the Turing Tarpits.
And then go do some Object Oriented BrainF*ck just because OOP makes things so much easier.
Why do you classify this behavior as a bug? Sounds more like a RFC. Just because you don't like the way it was designed doesn't means that it's a bug.
Saw the movie last night with my 3 kids. Not particularly impressed but there were some funny moments here and there. The one thing I did notice was the obvious references to 2001. The way the meteor gets implanted into the ground makes it look like a monolith. The clean room suits look like the space suits that Dave wore. And the evolved guerillas look a lot like those apes near the beginning of 2001. Any other 2001 references that I missed?