Re: [Axiom-developer] NOWEB

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I do not have an answer to your question.  Different people function
> differently. 
>
> But, if the question is directed to me, then the answer is "I do
> play with lots of programming languages, and fluent in quite a few of
> them, with totally different paradigms -- I would not be here, if it
> were otherwise".  Now, if you ask me whether in a large project I
> would recommend that we use all of them, then my first order answer is
> NO! 
>
> Maybe there is a confusion about appreciating diverse programming
> languages and appreciating the set of tools we should use to deliver a
> coherent, attractive, scalable, and maintainable project.
>
> I don't want my scarce resource (time) to be sunk in a black hole.
> When it comes to tenure, the number of languages one appreciates counts
> for exactly zero.  Software *development* counts for zero -- even in
> the area of software.  The number of papers count highly; grants are
> important.  
> I don't want to write about people writing software. I would prefer to 
> write about software, largely based on experience.  For that, I prefer
> invest the "wasted time" in something that can make a difference; that
> people use. I see an opportunity in Axiom.  I would hate it becomes a
> black hole where all sorts of languages get sunk into because of 
> "diverse programming language appreciation."  The reasons why we should
> add new tools to our tool bagage should be their effectiveness to
> solve specific problems we are facing, not just because we want to be
> diverse.  There is something to be said for breath, there is also
> something to be said for depth.   There must be a balance somewhere
> given the limited resources we have.
>   
I will second this. I keep promising myself I'll learn Ruby, because it
looks like a much better scripting language than Perl. But I maintain a
few thousand lines of mostly my own Perl code, and I'm not going to port
that to Ruby. Nor am I going to give up R for Ruby. And I've already
given up Fortran and C and I've nearly given up Lisp.

I intend to learn the highest level of Axiom -- whether or not I ever
get around to any of the underlying languages is an open question, given
that I want Axiom as a scientific applications programming language.
> | I think Icon was a worthy predecessor of the currently very
> | popular web scripting languages like perl and python that came
> | later but did a lot of the same things (not necessarily as
> | well ):
>
> You mean SNOBOL? :-)
>
> [ The whom I work for currently is a long term SNOBOL
>   hacker; yet he invented a different language that will not be suitable
>   for discussion here :-p  And we do work in an environment where we
>   highly appreciate diverse languages and paradigms. ]
>
> | 
> | http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/index.htm
> | 
> | Icon has venerable history rather similar to Axiom's, beginning
> | in 1977:
>
> Thanks; not mean to be rude -- but I'm an Icon hacker.  I spent long
> time studying Icon.  For example, I wanted to add generators (not
> co-routines) to C++; among other things I digested Icon's
> implementation.  That was not too long ago.
>
> -- Gaby
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Axiom-developer mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
>
>   

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com