Forth was made in 1970. Was past the time of Algol ( 1950's).
Hard to place assembler. How about hard wiring patch boards?
But Lisp, Fortran and COBOL were the languages where the basic principles were worked out.
Algol is where it was all refined, particularly, block statements, loop constructs.
C, Pascal was where it was refined even more.
FORTH is one of those other languages. ( Remember SNOBOL? )
I remember being asked to review a "patterns" book in a group. The book was terrible and everyone wanted to say it was terrible. But all we could say was nitpicky stuff.
Finally the guy asking the review said to us "these aren't patterns". Sometimes you want to want to say something is bad, but just can't. So you windup with nitpicky stuff.
I feel that way about this topic.
C is not first generation. Lisp, Fortran, COBOL are. Algol is second generation. Pascal, C are third generation. With lists of obscure languages in between.
As for the main point. It reflects more the desires of the original writer and the poster, then the reality of the situation.
We are making computers that in the 90's would be considered supercomputers, but these computers can barely render a web page.
Maybe the "wannabe" computer scientists should focus more on making good abstractions instead of the easiest abstraction available.
The most advances I see nowadays are in C++ template metaprogramming. The language is quite crusty and showing it's age and the large amount of false turns ti's taken, but it is at lest getting the basic theory right.
At it's simplest. The first instruction of a function program executed, the PC register is changed and that's that. The state of the machine is changed. Claiming to be startelss is just a fictional abstraction.
Moreover most programs are all about state ( eg. databases ).
State is something that functional programmers have been trying hard to isolate for a long time, inventing such monstrosities as monads ( which BTW are easy to understand when you don't use category theory ).
But I would really like to see something like a word processor written in a purely functional language with monads like Haskell. Then someone take the % of the code spent creating stateful monads ( such as IO or Option ) vs nonmonadic code or stateless monadic code ( like Lists ). I suspect that on averaage over all the programs in the world, 90% of the code ( via code, execution time, or any other size metric ) is spend into stateful monads and 10% in the rest of the code.
I remember a job fair, waiting in line at a Nothrup-Gruman line. The guy ahead of me steps up and starts talking about what a great VB programmer he was. The recruiter told him they were only looking for C++ and Ada. He then asked what could be done in Ada and C++ that couldn't be done in VB. The recruiter explained that they make military aircraft, and that most modern advancements were in the software that controls them. He says something that aircraft can't do that and walks away. I step up laughing and the recruiter and I share a knowing look.
When you are a mainstream button make, or a mainstream paper maker, there is nothing new. But tech changes, and the mainstream always tries to make every problem into a nail. It's especially worse which linux which is highly configurable. Many companies that have become mainstream start getting large heads and start dictating configurations rather then go with the flow, and OSS people tend to be more independent and get ruffled by such actions.
we used modern technology as well as we used that old technology.
Nowadays we have images, videos, sound etc. all to the good. But why does starting a browser alone use 25% CPU usage and using 3/4 of my memory.
Maybe someone will start to make BBS systems with modern equipment that can compete with "the Web".
If the decision is months away?
Better he should get in on it.
It's sort of the one thing I found disgusting about the hearings.
Al Franken was making good but irrelevant points about arbitration.
Then he went off on a Garland tangent.
The female Senator from Minnesota said that on the second round she would go into antitrust. But when the second round came she delayed antitrust for political crap. I didn't hear her questions on the third round so I don't know if she ever got to it.
Of what I heard IP was never discussed.
Yet these things affect us more then whether or not Garland got a hearing.
Slashdot Mirror
Forth was made in 1970. Was past the time of Algol ( 1950's). Hard to place assembler. How about hard wiring patch boards? But Lisp, Fortran and COBOL were the languages where the basic principles were worked out. Algol is where it was all refined, particularly, block statements, loop constructs. C, Pascal was where it was refined even more. FORTH is one of those other languages. ( Remember SNOBOL? )
The previous story about "Modern Languages"?
I remember being asked to review a "patterns" book in a group. The book was terrible and everyone wanted to say it was terrible. But all we could say was nitpicky stuff. Finally the guy asking the review said to us "these aren't patterns". Sometimes you want to want to say something is bad, but just can't. So you windup with nitpicky stuff. I feel that way about this topic. C is not first generation. Lisp, Fortran, COBOL are. Algol is second generation. Pascal, C are third generation. With lists of obscure languages in between. As for the main point. It reflects more the desires of the original writer and the poster, then the reality of the situation. We are making computers that in the 90's would be considered supercomputers, but these computers can barely render a web page. Maybe the "wannabe" computer scientists should focus more on making good abstractions instead of the easiest abstraction available. The most advances I see nowadays are in C++ template metaprogramming. The language is quite crusty and showing it's age and the large amount of false turns ti's taken, but it is at lest getting the basic theory right.
At it's simplest. The first instruction of a function program executed, the PC register is changed and that's that. The state of the machine is changed. Claiming to be startelss is just a fictional abstraction. Moreover most programs are all about state ( eg. databases ). State is something that functional programmers have been trying hard to isolate for a long time, inventing such monstrosities as monads ( which BTW are easy to understand when you don't use category theory ). But I would really like to see something like a word processor written in a purely functional language with monads like Haskell. Then someone take the % of the code spent creating stateful monads ( such as IO or Option ) vs nonmonadic code or stateless monadic code ( like Lists ). I suspect that on averaage over all the programs in the world, 90% of the code ( via code, execution time, or any other size metric ) is spend into stateful monads and 10% in the rest of the code.
Can they even haul a missle? They havve to be carefully balanced to do that, essentially double hulled ships.
I remember a job fair, waiting in line at a Nothrup-Gruman line. The guy ahead of me steps up and starts talking about what a great VB programmer he was. The recruiter told him they were only looking for C++ and Ada. He then asked what could be done in Ada and C++ that couldn't be done in VB. The recruiter explained that they make military aircraft, and that most modern advancements were in the software that controls them. He says something that aircraft can't do that and walks away. I step up laughing and the recruiter and I share a knowing look. When you are a mainstream button make, or a mainstream paper maker, there is nothing new. But tech changes, and the mainstream always tries to make every problem into a nail. It's especially worse which linux which is highly configurable. Many companies that have become mainstream start getting large heads and start dictating configurations rather then go with the flow, and OSS people tend to be more independent and get ruffled by such actions.
we used modern technology as well as we used that old technology. Nowadays we have images, videos, sound etc. all to the good. But why does starting a browser alone use 25% CPU usage and using 3/4 of my memory. Maybe someone will start to make BBS systems with modern equipment that can compete with "the Web".
It's sort of the one thing I found disgusting about the hearings. Al Franken was making good but irrelevant points about arbitration. Then he went off on a Garland tangent.
The female Senator from Minnesota said that on the second round she would go into antitrust. But when the second round came she delayed antitrust for political crap. I didn't hear her questions on the third round so I don't know if she ever got to it.
Of what I heard IP was never discussed.
Yet these things affect us more then whether or not Garland got a hearing.
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all