Print

Print


Donald J. HARLOW wrote:
> Matthew Barnett skribis je 2006.02.26 5.13 ptm...
> 
>> Donald J. HARLOW wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Nowicki skribis je 2006.02.26 3.21 ptm...
>>>
>>>> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The best computer operating systems are evolving
>>>>> in the same direction: microkernel and POSIX.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dana Nutter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This has nothing to do with what was being
>>>>> dicussed (the so-called religious fanaticism, or
>>>>> lack thereof, within supporter of these OS's).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually... there is a close analogy: the microkernel
>>>> is the equivalent of the small root set of the
>>>> oligosynthetic language.
>>>>
>>> Bingo! You have just explained why your oligosynthetic language with 
>>> its small root set will never catch on!
>>>
>>> How many programmers restrict their programming capability to, let us 
>>> say, that microkernel, using a machine-language instruction set? And 
>>> how many will prefer to do their programming in a higher-level 
>>> language, using various libraries -- let us say, C++ or Java, the 
>>> equivalents of a Euroclone in the programming world?
>>>
>> [snip]
>> I find that the best programming languages are those are basically 
>> small in terms of the number of things that are 'built-in', and with a 
>> simple, clear syntax, but which let you create larger abstractions and 
>> hide their implementation details, effectively enlarging the language. 
>> The more features you try to have built-in, the more cumbersome the 
>> language can become.
>>
>> In auxlang terms, this would mean that the language would have a 
>> relatively small root set and simple grammar and syntax, but would 
>> also let you define new words whose definitions may themselves be 
>> long-winded.
>>
>> For example, if there was a need for a word meaning 'bread' or 
>> 'computer', then it could be added.
>>
> This is rule 15 of Esperanto's famous (notorious?) "16 rules of grammar".
> 
>> Thinking is limited more by the number of items that it has to deal 
>> with at any one time than their meanings. That's why there's so much 
>> jargon around; it's useful for its users!
>>
> Speak on! I learned late (too late!) in my college career that, in 
> studying math and physics, far more important to learn than the math and 
> physics themselves were the terminologies that were used to 
> describe/explain them. If I were a high-school counsellor, that's a 
> point I would definitely make to every college-bound student in my school.
> 
At school they try to teach many things, but that isn't one of them!