Ok, today's Wikipedia learned me few things.
One is the term “von neumann programnig lang”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_programming_languages
effectively, that's those of C, C++, Java, sh, perl and the bunch of
garbage to no ends.
In short, “von neumann programnig lang” are those modeled on computer
hardware. Namely, storage, control flow. (thus the bunch of garbage
such as memory address, pointers, file handle, (and, lisp's cons))
I find the discovery of this term very illuminating. I used to use
pages of words to describe the low-level ness that exhibit in these
stupid langs. The term “von neumann programnig lang” gives a concise,
quotable, insight on why it is so.
Lets start to throw the jargon “von neumann programnig language” in C,
C++, Java, Perl etc newsgroups. Seriously. It'll help educate society.
* * *
i also learned today, about what's called “functional-level
programing”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function-level_programming
hard to summarize in one sentence... but basically like functional
programing but with one characteristic formalism that sets it apart,
namely: creation of functions are limited to a particular set of
higher-order functions, and you cannot arbitrary birth functions (e.g.
the moronicity of lisp's macros).
The force of this particular formalism is that it makes it more
subject to mathematical analysis (and thus makes it more powerful and
flexible), similar to for example to the clear separation of features
in 2nd order logic from first order logic. Wikipedia said it best,
quote:
«This restriction means that functions in FP are a module (generated
by the built-in functions) over the algebra of functional forms, and
are thus algebraically tractable. For instance, the general question
of equality of two functions is equivalent to the halting problem, and
is undecidable, but equality of two functions in FP is just equality
in the algebra, and thus (Backus imagines) easier.»
«Even today, many users of lambda style languages often misinterpret
Backus' function-level approach as a restrictive variant of the lambda
style, which is a de facto value-level style. In fact, Backus would
not have disagreed with the 'restrictive' accusation: he argued that
it was precisely due to such restrictions that a well-formed
mathematical space could arise, in a manner analogous to the way
structured programming limits programming to a restricted version of
all the control-flow possibilities available in plain, unrestricted
unstructured programs.»
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Xah Lee wrote:
«
...
In short, “Von Neumann programnig lang” are those modeled on computer
hardware. Namely, storage and control flow. (thus the bunch of garbage
such as memory address, pointers, file handle (and lisp's cons).)
I find the discovery of this term very illuminating. I used to use
pages of words to describe the low-level ness that exhibit in these
stupid langs. The term “Von Neumann programnig lang” gives a concise,
quotable, insight on why it is so.
...
»
I have now extended a bit this essay, with a perm url at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/hardware_based_langs.html
Here's the added paragraph:
Another term similar to Von Neumann programing lang, is Imperative
programming↗, though it captures the stupidity of these langs from a
different perspective. The concept in Von Neumann programing lang is a
better one because it gives insight on the origin of the stupidities
in this class of langs.
The opposite of Von Neumann programnig lang would be “Mathematics
modeled languages”. Lisp, Haskell, Mathematica, APL, Prolog etc are
this class (in general called Declarative programing↗ languages, in
contrast to imperative programing.).
A more communicative term for “Von Neumann programnig lang” should be
computer hardware modeled languages, but of course that loses the
buzzword quality.
Lets start to throw the jargon “von neumann programnig language” in C,
C++, Java, Perl etc forums. Seriously. It'll help benefit programing
community in the education aspect by raising awareness.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
<······@gmail.com> wrote in message
·········································@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> In short, "von neumann programnig lang" are those modeled on computer
> hardware. Namely, storage, control flow. (thus the bunch of garbage
> such as memory address, pointers, file handle, (and, lisp's cons))
>
> I find the discovery of this term very illuminating. I used to use
> pages of words to describe the low-level ness that exhibit in these
> stupid langs. The term "von neumann programnig lang" gives a concise,
> quotable, insight on why it is so.
He had designs for better systems but died before he was able to impliment
them.
As for why he did it the way he did, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis
> The force of this particular formalism is that it makes it more
> subject to mathematical analysis (and thus makes it more powerful and
> flexible), similar to for example to the clear separation of features
> in 2nd order logic from first order logic. Wikipedia said it best,
As to why traditional math is not better, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G�del's_incompleteness_theorems
X
On Aug 20, 5:56 pm, "Mr. X" <····@spam.net> wrote:
> As to why traditional math is not better, please see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
in newsgroup, one indication that the poster is some kinda of
sophomoronic idiot, is whether they mention such things as Godel's
theorem or turing complete.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
<······@gmail.com> wrote in message
·········································@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> in newsgroup, one indication that the poster is some kinda of
> sophomoronic idiot, is whether they mention such things as Godel's
> theorem or turing complete.
Please see your doctor about your prescription.
X
Mr. X wrote:
> <······@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ·········································@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>in newsgroup, one indication that the poster is some kinda of
>>sophomoronic idiot, is whether they mention such things as Godel's
>>theorem or turing complete.
>
>
> Please see your doctor about your prescription.
>
>
> X
>
>
Please see your joke book about material to avoid at all costs because
it is so predictable, unimaginative, overused, and other bad stuff I
cannot remember, it will be in the book.
hth, Y