Re: Pragmatic Requirements Summary : update

> Speaking as someone who does drivers/embedded code professionally, the 
> only way you are going to replace C in this niche is with a language that 
> can also be used as a hardware description language, making it easy(-ier)   
> to move functionality between hardware and software.  I.e. you replace C  
> and Verilog/VHDL at the same time.  As that isn't the goal here, I'd  
> advice you ignore this particular problem domain and focus elsewhere. 
 
 We were using drivers as more of a generic idea to indicate 'low level stuff'. 
Perhaps we should have been more specific. 
 
>  
> Although this whole discussion is symptomatic of the problems with this 
> whole project.  You're building a bigger, better golden hammer- the one 
> true programming language, the only programming language you'll ever need.   
> It doesn't matter if you're banging together a quick script to organize 
> your photolibrary, simulating a nuclear explosion, keeping track of 
> payroll, or writting an operating system or office suite- Pragmatic is the 
> language for you!  It's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax! 
 
 Its not really a monolithic language. Its a very small, very simple, very consistant, 
very extensable langauge. We are planning to build up this core to address 
different areas and different problems. Of course all of these exentions should be 
interoperable.  
 
> My understanding of the pragmatic philosophy was 180 degrees seperate.   
> Being pragmatic meant not beleiving in golden hammers- *any* golden  
> hammer.  You learn a new language a year so you know a lot of languages,  
> and can use the right one for the job. Tip #17 is "program close to the  
> problem domain".  Up to and including inventing new languages that are  
> even closer to the problem domain.   
>  
> Brian 
 
 Its not so much a golden hammer as it is a golden forge or perhaps and automatic 
milling machine. You build the domain/paradigm specific extensions for the area 
you are targeting. Eventually, you probably wont have to role your one exentions 
as its likly that the extention will have been created for you. What this does mean 
is we have to support some low level features so that they are available, even if 
90% of the population doesn't use them. 
 
 So eventually the goal is to be able to pull in the extensions you need to easily 
and closly model your langauge to the problem domain.  
 
 I generally see this approach to langauge design as very pragmatic, but thats just 
me. 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/sO0ANB/LIdGAA/ySSFAA/W4wwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pragmatic_lang-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/