Giacomo Tesio on Nostr: Anzû - 𒀭𒉎𒂂𒄷 It's not much about thinking that people who tried before ...
Anzû - 𒀭𒉎𒂂𒄷 (nprofile…r65h)
It's not much about thinking that people who tried before were demented, but about knowing, as we both know, that each programming language had certain goals in mind and certain constraints to work within.
Given that programming is usually seen as a profession (and an engineering one), instead of a human right, I think it's reasonable to assume that very few programming languages were designed to pursuit a political goal.
Many educational "toy" languages, for example, are fun to learn and may help some kids to discover a passion for programming, but cannot be used for building serious softwares, such as an operating system, an editor, a browser or whatever.
As a conseguence such kids cannot develop a demand for programs they can fully understand and modify, and they becomes useds as adult.
The best attempts at viable simplicity I know about are Wirth's #Oberon system and language, that basically conflated user and programmer, were a step in the right direction.
In my head I'd like to improve from there with simpler semantics (no heap memory, no record extensibility, total functions, cantor set theory for types...), but when I try to, I end writing example programs full of symbols instead of readable keywords.
I get what you say about the need of rigour yet flexible semantics.
And maybe you are even right.
But if you are not?
What if a powerful language with a readable syntax and simple semantics that every adult could understand could exist...but nobody ever try to create it?
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqvje76wq7e5kh9x2c0cggcmymz5408yw8lxxhtpy6v0cdwfu2c9astm4yv2 (nprofile…4yv2) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpql6y9crnszfl254uja2ldcr2u506qw8j4xpydxalg68643fmk2ydq0jcfpq (nprofile…cfpq) Technology (nprofile…emk5) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqkl0nx4tt57w0wdvurnlph5pqz6vqn3s5xn2tztcue2nt7zk7ushsstsh0l (nprofile…sh0l)
It's not much about thinking that people who tried before were demented, but about knowing, as we both know, that each programming language had certain goals in mind and certain constraints to work within.
Given that programming is usually seen as a profession (and an engineering one), instead of a human right, I think it's reasonable to assume that very few programming languages were designed to pursuit a political goal.
Many educational "toy" languages, for example, are fun to learn and may help some kids to discover a passion for programming, but cannot be used for building serious softwares, such as an operating system, an editor, a browser or whatever.
As a conseguence such kids cannot develop a demand for programs they can fully understand and modify, and they becomes useds as adult.
The best attempts at viable simplicity I know about are Wirth's #Oberon system and language, that basically conflated user and programmer, were a step in the right direction.
In my head I'd like to improve from there with simpler semantics (no heap memory, no record extensibility, total functions, cantor set theory for types...), but when I try to, I end writing example programs full of symbols instead of readable keywords.
I get what you say about the need of rigour yet flexible semantics.
And maybe you are even right.
But if you are not?
What if a powerful language with a readable syntax and simple semantics that every adult could understand could exist...but nobody ever try to create it?
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqvje76wq7e5kh9x2c0cggcmymz5408yw8lxxhtpy6v0cdwfu2c9astm4yv2 (nprofile…4yv2) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpql6y9crnszfl254uja2ldcr2u506qw8j4xpydxalg68643fmk2ydq0jcfpq (nprofile…cfpq) Technology (nprofile…emk5) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqkl0nx4tt57w0wdvurnlph5pqz6vqn3s5xn2tztcue2nt7zk7ushsstsh0l (nprofile…sh0l)