Programming Language Gurus Converge on 'Curry On' Conference (curry-on.org) 88
Videos are now online from this week's Curry On conference, which incuded talks by programming pioneers Larry Wall and Matthias Felleisen, as well as speakers from Google, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and Oracle. Dave Herman from Mozilla Research also talked about building an open source research lab, while Larry Wall's keynote was titled "It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Fine."
Billing itself as a non-profit conference about programming languages and emerging computer-industry challenges, this year's installment included talks about Java, Rust, Scala, Perl, Racket, Clojure, Rascal, Go and Oden. Held in a different European city each year, the annual conference hopes to provoke an open conversation between academia and the larger technology industry.
Billing itself as a non-profit conference about programming languages and emerging computer-industry challenges, this year's installment included talks about Java, Rust, Scala, Perl, Racket, Clojure, Rascal, Go and Oden. Held in a different European city each year, the annual conference hopes to provoke an open conversation between academia and the larger technology industry.
Re: (Score:1)
Some people have legacy Perl to maintain you insensitive clod!
Some of us still code new stuff in Perl, you doubly insensitive clod!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that you Larry Wall?
Re: (Score:2)
With Perl 7 being released, Perl is young and hip again and actually I've seen an uptick in new upstart projects using them just because they can. Releasing open source projects in obscure languages is the newest trick to keep the host companies involved with expensive licensing/support agreements.
Fascinating. All of TWO relevant languages (Score:1)
But a lot of projects that primarily feed egos and serve to prevent people from getting generally useful skills (so they cannot easily change jobs).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just my take. That is why I am back to C for anything but glue-logic. All that clutter more "modern" languages add is just not worth it. True, I currently use Python3 as glue, and the C I write is somewhat OO as it is Python modules, but that is it. Most "revolutionary" trends in programming languages are just not fit for actual production use.
Of course, most programmers are not fit to write productive code either (the utter crap I see when doing code-reviews is incredible), but that is another story.
Re: (Score:2)
and the C I write is somewhat OO
Have you read Ian Piumarta's paper on open extensible object models [piumarta.com]? There's some food for thought for C programmers.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but from a quick glance now, the way to do it is rather obvious. The Python OO model also transfers fully to embedded C components. Still nice that somebody wrote this up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? This is actually starting to sound like a good way to do things.
The drawback is the maintenance time it would take, as new versions of the DB come out. That is absolutely the only drawback I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? That depends on the database, obviously. Usually it will be the Simple (but stupid) Query Language, but some other models exist. Databases are not complicated or powerful enough to really matter language-wise and a query language hardly qualifies as programming language, far too limited. Databases can just get large and they have (if sane) ACID out of the box, but that is about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Oh! I know! We'll stack another layer of software on top! That'll just fix everything!'
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes [wikipedia.org]:
"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection"
Re: (Score:2)
If you need to ask, then you cannot understand the answer. Or maybe you are just trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give it up, man. He's basically bitter that the world is largely moving on from C. He seems to be on every language thread telling everyone how superior he is for using older, less powerful tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehe, funny. Have looked at the TIOBE index lately? It may not be very accurate, but nothing in the TIOBE top-5 is going away anytime soon, let along the long-term 2nd place.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is moving away. It's slow, and not going to move completely away for a loooong time, but C used to be the #1 king of the hill. It's now relegated to niches, albeit large ones. You can almost certainly avoid learning anything new until you retire, but nonetheless that does not make you superior for only using C.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the Linux kernel written in C? Seems that at least one luminary thinks it's still relevant.
Ys, but that luminary has shown he doesn't actually know enough about C++ to have an opinion on it! Or at least his biases are so strong and lacking in perspective that they're clearly overwhelming any technical argument.
Anyway now that GCC has gone the way of C++, the existence of Linux is dependent on C++ albeit indirectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, most embedded development is done using C especially on low power devices. We are getting more of these devices added to our world every day, not less. The PC on the other hand is in decline in terms of numbers. I don't think the world is moving away from C, but I do think that C is in decline on the PC.
Not much competes with C in the embedded space. While Java is having some limited success on the bigger embedded systems; Those that have enough space to install it and still have room l
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, most embedded development is done using C especially on low power devices.
A mix. Some is done in C. In part that's due to a lack of a good C++ compiler. AVRs and Arms support C++. My shitey little 8051 only supports C (lol IAR making class a synonym for struct does not a C++ compiler make), so I write in C.
However, many of the shitey 8051s are being superceded by ARMs. I'd love to switch, but we're about to enter production so it's not worth it now. The next version will use the ARM. I
Re: (Score:2)
This is research. Relevance to fashion is not important. All of the "relevant" languages got their start from people researching and using a wide variety of programming languages.
Sad day (Score:3)
The main replies to this story seem to be basically hatin' on people who want to do something interesting with their spare time. How horrifying that people want to do something new and better rather than stick to whatever was state-of-the-art in the 1970s.
how about conference with relevant languages (Score:1)
niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things. Of those languages in summary, Java is used. Perl used to be but Larry has been doing wonderful job of letting it die and few would choose that for new infrastructure. the rest are fads
Re: (Score:2)
niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things.
The fallacy of appealing ad populum applies to programming languages as well. Not to mention the fact that lots of people who are not doing things "how the world at large does [it]" are not exactly going to be talking about it a lot if they find themselves in a competitive environment. Why give your competition ideas? I mean, the probability of your competition "getting it" is often very low but still non-zero.
Re: (Score:2)
no new language is going to give competitive features to a product. Mature libraries, analysis and debugging tools and standard approaches to common problems instead should be primary concerns of a new business or new product idea.
Re:how about conference with relevant languages (Score:4, Insightful)
The same reasoning in civil engineering would translate to saying that you only need a shovel and a mason's trowel to build anything. Yes, you can, the "competitive features" like improved insulation or just fashionable architecture don't depend on how you put the parts in place. But more powerful tools allow you to do more things in limited time.
Having said that, building those tools is complicated enough so it takes too much time and isn't generally done, be it building languages, debuggers, or whatever tool you need, basically equally. You do correctly, if obliquely refer to a well-identified problem [unibe.ch] of insufficient tooling even in those languages that are generally considered sufficiently expressive to not require additional syntax or semantics. Interestingly, this is independent of whether you're working in a more specialized language that has the concepts in question embedded in its core primitives, or in a less specialized language that requires you to first build these higher concepts (of interest to you) out of its lower-level constructs. It would even appear that the problem is roughly of the same scope regardless of whether you're building a new language (in the traditional "lexical-syntactic" sense, not just in terms of new APIs) or not, with the "standard approach" you're mentioning involving using non-specific analysis and debugging tools that are all-too-often only of marginal benefit because they don't provide the views that a large system might require to be more easily comprehended or modified, for example, by a newcomer. Building improved tools unfortunately requires some kind of model regardless of whether the model is explicit in form of another language or merely implicit in the code of the tools and the patterns of use of some API you're building. But the designers of programming environments can't possibly anticipate all the domains you might want to use their environment for, so even if you decide not to use or develop another language for an application, unfortunately, not much changes, there are still tooling problems to be solved. You've merely shifted the burden from one kind of tools to another kind of tools, and one could successfully argue that accessible techniques for building better tools (to bring them into the realm of what Eric Raymond refers to as "casual programming" in TAoUP) are highly desirable for overall productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You think you're an expert on logical fallacies, which you aren't. But you just hit the excluded middle bang dead centre.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the same reasoning in civil engineering would be Caterpillar holding a seminar bulldozing the caterpillar way
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a fallacy, it's true. How many lines of Rust are in use compared to C or even COBOL?
More useful than current (Score:5, Insightful)
Going to a technical conference for a language that is popular or that you know well does not offer that much value, because almost anything you learn there could have been learned online quicker.
Going to a conference filled with niche languages or higher level ideas is great because it's much more mind-expanding, and even if ideas seem esoteric there's always some interesting twist you can take back into languages you know better or are more practical to work with. It also helps keep you from getting too pigeon-holed by ignoring changes in the world around you, as I see many object-oriented die-hards doing...
Re: (Score:2)
but languages are just rehashes of the same ideas, so no mind expansion to be had there. there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others
Re: (Score:2)
there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others
Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly? (But I agree that the greatest value today may not lie in the development of new completely general languages but perhaps in finding ways to formulate ideas in specific application domains more concisely while keeping readability so that you could achieve more complex but beneficial things using less brain time, including doing the same (in a circular fashion) to the development of such languages in order to simplify this process it actually made sense
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?
Half joking, Half serious: Who says we're not?
Aside, because a developer's time costs more then the CPU's time -- THAT is why we use higher level languages. It comes down to price. We trade quality for iteration time. Most businesses can't _afford_ to justify writing in assembly. It is far cheaper to just hire a few recent college grads and have them bang out code in the latest iHipster language. High Level language are good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others
Not only that, it can be done with worst-case constant overhead simply by implementing the new language using an old language first.
See, I know my algorithmic complexity theory too.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about space overhead, but okay, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
but languages are just rehashes of the same ideas
So... which existing language is Rust's memory model a rehash of?
there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others
That's only true in the fully qualified version:
there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others given unlimited time to implement.
Once you admit that limited resources exist, then yes, there's plenty we can do in new languages that we can't do in old one.
Re: (Score:2)
ITYM "ownership model." Rust's memory model is still not formalized in situations involving safe/unsafe mixtures and similar corner cases.
Yep, that is what I meant!
Re: (Score:2)
So... which existing language is Rust's memory model a rehash of?
I can't answer in depth since I haven't looked at Rust's memory model in depth yet but the things I've seen so far sort of reminded me of linear type systems and their ilk, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was very few new ideas in it, if any.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant ownership model as AC pointed out.
I can't answer in depth since I haven't looked at Rust's memory model in depth yet but the things I've seen so far sort of reminded me of linear type systems and their ilk, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was very few new ideas in it, if any.
Yeah, that's the right direction. But nothing new is rather unfair. There's a difference between type theory and a practical, fast language with those types in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The world won't get much done if there aren't eggheads discovering new ways to do things. You do realize Slashdot is news for nerds, right? So arguments about "not cool enough for me" don't hold a lot of weight.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I guess different people have different opinions about what is "relevant" and a "fad".
I haven't seen any Perl in production use in a number of years - although I'm sure it exists, for me and my career it's way past being "relevant". I was using it 20 years ago...
Scala is highly relevant, it's a fantastic language which I've been using professionally for over 2 years to great effect. I've built infrastructures serving millions of requests per second using it - and I'm not alone - Scala is widely used at
Re: (Score:2)
niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things.
Wow you actually have just dropped down as far as using anti intellectual insults. This is supposed to be news for nerds, you know. Since when did anti intellectualism become a nerd thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Since Joe_Dragon signed up.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, and no.
I've never 100% agreed with this quote. A big chunk of computer science is about building better telescope
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, most languages are just rehashes of same old ideas. java is warmed over C++ and gives NOTHING more, for example.
JavaSCRIPT on the other hand is a step backwards giving somewhat less power.
In fact let's just skip the other languages and say the "improvements" to the most languages are just additions that make them slightly more approach the power LISP had decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Perl is quite alive. Just use the last non-drug fueled version (5.x) and you will not have to deal with pink elephants.
Although 6.x Perl serves as a nice example of the "Second System Effect" (a bit delayed) and hence is quite useful as an example of how to not do things.
Re: (Score:2)
Perl is quite alive. Just use the last non-drug fueled version (5.x)
But you don't need to go to a conference for that. I use perl all the time for quick throw-away scripts, because I can do a lot with minimal typing. But I would never use it for a project that needed to be maintained, or for anything over 100 lines of code. I also assiduously avoid any new features, which is the focus of conferences.
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't need to go to a conference for that.
No argument on that. Perl 5.x is basically finished. "Improving" something finished makes it usually much worse. The exceptionally long time Perl 6 has been in the works is a valuable clue.
Re: (Score:2)
A Type is Worth a Thousand Tests (Score:1)
This looks like worth a watch... https://youtu.be/q1Yi-WM7XqQ?t=6m20s (actual content starts 6:22 into the video).
Re: (Score:2)
Why. Were you planning on acting like a sexist douche at a conference and now you can't get away with it anymore?
Sounds like you need to cast a vote for the insane clown posse guy in November to vent a little of that hormonal rage.
Curry on? (Score:2)
Curry on? Was the name chosen because it's mainly for H-1Bs?