This morning's Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) features:
The Hundred-Year Language
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/11/1223223
Speculation about what programming languages will be like a hundred years
from now.
Don't forget to join in on the discussion, too, since there will doubtless
be lots of misimpressions of Lisp needing fixing.
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <m3d6jtj7ud.fsf@javamonkey.com>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> This morning's Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) features:
>
> The Hundred-Year Language
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/11/1223223
>
> Speculation about what programming languages will be like a hundred years
> from now.
>
> Don't forget to join in on the discussion, too, since there will
> doubtless be lots of misimpressions of Lisp needing fixing.
With references to Star Trek? ;-)
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
The intellectual level needed for system design is in general
grossly underestimated. I am convinced more than ever that this
type of work is very difficult and that every effort to do it with
other than the best people is doomed to either failure or moderate
success at enormous expense. --Edsger Dijkstra
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:11:21 +0200, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Speculation about what programming languages will be like a hundred
> years from now.
>
It's a good article .
Read it even if you are slow at reading
english like me :)
Python is named 2 times , Lisp 11 .
It was a Python conference i wander how
Pythoners reacted :)
Bye.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <3E971769.5010104@nyc.rr.com>
nneo wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:11:21 +0200, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
>
>
>>Speculation about what programming languages will be like a hundred
>>years from now.
>>
>
>
>
> It's a good article .
Not if you are interested in what languages will be like in 100 years.
Hell, he did not even mention Cells.
> Read it even if you are slow at reading
> english like me :)
>
> Python is named 2 times , Lisp 11 .
> It was a Python conference i wander how
> Pythoners reacted :)
Me, too. Maybe they are all out downloading CL implementations.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:19:54 +0200, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>
>> It's a good article .
>
> Not if you are interested in what languages will be like in 100 years.
Well , may be there isn't an effort
to show the effective external appearence
of THE languae but some points he shows are intresting .
For example , the fact that the language will
be oriented to simple development at expense of speed and optimization .
Or the idea of a single type , isn't it charming ?
>Hell, he did not even mention Cells.
I don't understand , can you explain ?
>> It was a Python conference i wander how Pythoners reacted :)
> Me, too. Maybe they are all out downloading CL implementations.
hehehe .
bye
"nneo" <······@iol.it> wrote in message
·················@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:19:54 +0200, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
> >>
> >> It's a good article .
> >
> > Not if you are interested in what languages will be like in 100 years.
>
> Well , may be there isn't an effort
> to show the effective external appearence
> of THE languae but some points he shows are intresting .
> For example , the fact that the language will
> be oriented to simple development at expense of speed and optimization .
> Or the idea of a single type , isn't it charming ?
>
> >Hell, he did not even mention Cells.
>
> I don't understand , can you explain ?
Cells is Kenny's pet project, extending LISP with automatically updating
"cells". It's a form of constraint programming. I agree with Ken that
Cells or something like it should become big in the near future.
Alan
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <3E976BF7.4090301@nyc.rr.com>
nneo wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:19:54 +0200, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>>It's a good article .
>>
>>Not if you are interested in what languages will be like in 100 years.
>
>
> Well , may be there isn't an effort
> to show the effective external appearence
> of THE languae but some points he shows are intresting .
> For example , the fact that the language will
> be oriented to simple development at expense of speed and optimization .
that was very funny I guess to any of us that are using Lisp and already
have made the leap it seems to year 2100. i mean, that's not a
prediction, that's Lisp advocacy, straight out of the SCST (?) paper
shared here last week.
> Or the idea of a single type , isn't it charming ?
OK, that was fun. Using a list to represent a number. Now all we need is
a LISt Processing language.... but what would we call it?
>>Hell, he did not even mention Cells.
>
> I don't understand , can you explain ?
Sorry, private joke. Apparently my Cells marketing reach is not what I
think it is. :)
Alan answered for me. For more, follow the url in my sig to some sloppy
write-ups.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:56:53 +0200, nneo wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:11:21 +0200, Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
>
>> Speculation about what programming languages will be like a hundred
>> years from now.
>>
>
>
> It's a good article .
> Read it even if you are slow at reading
> english like me :)
>
> Python is named 2 times , Lisp 11 .
> It was a Python conference i wander how
> Pythoners reacted :)
We Pythoners are very clever and tolerant. We represent tha final stage of
evolution.
We appreciate Lisp as it was a necessary step in the evolution which finally lead to Python.
We hope that those poor wretched creatures who still use other languages
and have not reckognised the truth yet, will soon switch to Python, in
their own best interest.
We do sympathize with these people. If only we could help them open their
eyes and learn about our perfect language!
Anyway, we Pythoners are always very calm. Flame wars are definitely below
us!
--
JB
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <3E985E08.5010706@nyc.rr.com>
jblazi wrote:
> We Pythoners are very clever and tolerant. We represent tha final stage of
> evolution.
>
> We appreciate Lisp as it was a necessary step in the evolution which finally lead to Python.
This is exciting news. Python has evolved beyond Lisp? I was aware that
Python had poor imitations of some Lisp features, but I was not aware
that it offered features /beyond/ Lisp.
Prithee, what might those language features be? Lotsa libraries?
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:38:03 +0000, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> This is exciting news. Python has evolved beyond Lisp? I was aware that
> Python had poor imitations of some Lisp features, but I was not aware
> that it offered features /beyond/ Lisp.
>
> Prithee, what might those language features be? Lotsa libraries?
"Prithee"! Vow!
Lisp is wonderful, fascinating *theory*. It was designed to be beautiful.
Python was designed to be *useful*.
If you really want to write something, you need a real language like
Python (which has libraries, ba the way).
--
jb
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <m3brzbigta.fsf@javamonkey.com>
"jblazi" <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:38:03 +0000, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > This is exciting news. Python has evolved beyond Lisp? I was aware that
> > Python had poor imitations of some Lisp features, but I was not aware
> > that it offered features /beyond/ Lisp.
> >
> > Prithee, what might those language features be? Lotsa libraries?
>
> "Prithee"! Vow!
> Lisp is wonderful, fascinating *theory*. It was designed to be beautiful.
So the folks who use Lisp in telephone switches and in robots that
sweep mines and tunnel into oil wells are blinded by theory? Likewise,
I guess, the folks who use Lisp to develop games like Jax and Daxter
for the PS2. Hmmm.
I think you may be thinking of Scheme when you say "designed to be
beautiful. Though these days even Scheme has lots of "practical"
extensions. But Common Lisp was not designed to be beautiful. It has a
certain beauty, no doubt, but it was designed to provide a common
language for folks who were using Lisp to do real stuff like write the
OS's on Lisp machines, run battle planning simulations for the Army,
and other hard stuff.
It's fine (by me anyway) if you decide that Python is more your cup of
tea. And certainly for a certain class of problems the Python
libraries are a big help. But if you're going to dismiss Lisp you
should at least know what you're dismissing.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
The intellectual level needed for system design is in general
grossly underestimated. I am convinced more than ever that this
type of work is very difficult and that every effort to do it with
other than the best people is doomed to either failure or moderate
success at enormous expense. --Edsger Dijkstra
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <m38yufigka.fsf@javamonkey.com>
"jblazi" <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:38:03 +0000, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > This is exciting news. Python has evolved beyond Lisp? I was aware that
> > Python had poor imitations of some Lisp features, but I was not aware
> > that it offered features /beyond/ Lisp.
> >
> > Prithee, what might those language features be? Lotsa libraries?
>
> "Prithee"! Vow!
> Lisp is wonderful, fascinating *theory*. It was designed to be beautiful.
So the folks who use Lisp in telephone switches and in robots that
sweep mines and tunnel into oil wells are blinded by theory? Likewise,
I guess, the folks who use Lisp to develop games like Jax and Daxter
for the PS2. Hmmm.
I think you may be thinking of Scheme when you say "designed to be
beautiful. Though these days even Scheme has lots of "practical"
extensions. But Common Lisp was not designed to be beautiful. It has a
certain beauty, no doubt, but it was designed to provide a common
language for folks who were using Lisp to do real stuff like write the
OS's on Lisp machines, run battle planning simulations for the Army,
and other hard stuff.
It's fine (by me anyway) if you decide that Python is more your cup of
tea. And certainly for a certain class of problems the Python
libraries are a big help. But if you're going to dismiss Lisp you
should at least know what you're dismissing.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
The intellectual level needed for system design is in general
grossly underestimated. I am convinced more than ever that this
type of work is very difficult and that every effort to do it with
other than the best people is doomed to either failure or moderate
success at enormous expense. --Edsger Dijkstra
Peter Seibel wrote:
> "jblazi" <······@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Lisp is wonderful, fascinating *theory*. It was designed to be beautiful.
>
[...]
> I think you may be thinking of Scheme when you say "designed to be
> beautiful. Though these days even Scheme has lots of "practical"
> extensions. But Common Lisp was not designed to be beautiful.
CL has a typical all-American design: Big, Powerful, Heavy-Duty, and a
bit ugly. ;-)
Matthias
"M H" <··@nospam.org> wrote in message
····················@news.t-online.com...
> Peter Seibel wrote:
> > "jblazi" <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>Lisp is wonderful, fascinating *theory*. It was designed to be
beautiful.
> >
> [...]
> > I think you may be thinking of Scheme when you say "designed to be
> > beautiful. Though these days even Scheme has lots of "practical"
> > extensions. But Common Lisp was not designed to be beautiful.
>
> CL has a typical all-American design: Big, Powerful, Heavy-Duty, and a
> bit ugly. ;-)
Hey, it was designed by a committee, just like C++. What do you expect?
Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> writes:
> It's fine (by me anyway) if you decide that Python is more your cup of
> tea. And certainly for a certain class of problems the Python
> libraries are a big help. But if you're going to dismiss Lisp you
> should at least know what you're dismissing.
Just a few comments from the peanut gallery:
1) Python is *slow*.
2) Python lacks *many* of the powerful mechanisms/facilities
of Common Lisp, or have distinctly less powerful versions
of them.
3) Python may have an abundance of libraries, but the quality
of those libraries is not always up to scratch :-)
4) Some of the "standard" libraries duplicate functionality in
the core language (mostly for efficiency reasons). What's
the point in _that_?
5) The "Interactive Python Experience" is nowhere near the
"Interactive Lisp Experience".
--
Raymond Wiker Mail: ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <3E98F4A2.70504@nyc.rr.com>
jblazi wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:38:03 +0000, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>>This is exciting news. Python has evolved beyond Lisp? I was aware that
>>Python had poor imitations of some Lisp features, but I was not aware
>>that it offered features /beyond/ Lisp.
>>
>>Prithee, what might those language features be? Lotsa libraries?
>
>
> "Prithee"! Vow!
> Lisp is wonderful, fascinating *theory*. It was designed to be beautiful.
>
> Python was designed to be *useful*.
The language per se defines the upper bound on its ultimate utility.
Python erred by making utility a goal (and getting all smug about
libraries just because it is just syntactic sugar for C which of course
had a few libraries). So python is an ugly hack that has already reached
its upper bound. Lisp's "wonderful, fascinating theory" leaves it with
an upper bound no one can as yet even guess at.
> If you really want to write something, you need a real language like
> Python (which has libraries, ba the way).
I see why pythonistas eschew flamewars -- yer unarmed. Go pick a fight
with someone your own size... Java? Ruby? You might hold your own with
another Lisp wannabe, but don't mess with The Real Deal.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 05:20:37 +0000, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> I see why pythonistas eschew flamewars -- yer unarmed. Go pick a fight
> with someone your own size... Java? Ruby? You might hold your own with
> another Lisp wannabe, but don't mess with The Real Deal.
My English has reached its upper bound as well, as I am not sure that I
understand what you mean.
Actually, I was just joking, sorry. (I am not a Pythonist either though I
very much like Python and use it every now and then.)
You know that I have invested a lot of
effort into Lisp and I know its strengths and its weaknesses, at least to
some extent. (I am very far from being an experienced user though.)
But it seems to me that it is not unfair if I say that there is a grain of
truth in what I said. On the other hand wxLisp seems a very good idea to
me and I just wonder if it will be available for, say, Clisp one day.
--
jb
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Paul Graham on Slashdot: The Hundred-Year Language
Date:
Message-ID: <3E9965D7.4040107@nyc.rr.com>
jblazi wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 05:20:37 +0000, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>>I see why pythonistas eschew flamewars -- yer unarmed. Go pick a fight
>>with someone your own size... Java? Ruby? You might hold your own with
>>another Lisp wannabe, but don't mess with The Real Deal.
>
>
> My English has reached its upper bound as well, as I am not sure that I
> understand what you mean.
>
> Actually, I was just joking, sorry.
Me, too. :) You are indeed well-known to be a lispnik, so I had no
concern a serious flamewar would break out.
glossary
========
eschew: decide against
wannabe: slang/short for "want to be", as in "Python wants to be Lisp".
a great put-down for new languages with cool new ideas Lisp has had for
forty years.
The Real Deal: genuine exemplar vs poor imitation
lispnik: one who digs Lisp
dig: like
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay