The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: (Noel Chiappa)
Subject: Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ]
Date: Sat,  1 Jan 2022 23:02:17 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

    > From: John Cowan

    > Why use C syntax? What was wrong with Fortran, Lisp, or Cobol syntax,
    > extended to do what you wanted?

Why do all hammers look basically the same? Because there's an 'ideal
hammer', and over time hammer design has asymtoted toward that 'ideal hammer'
design. One can't just keep improving the design indefinitely - diminishing
returns set in.

So I suspect there is, to some degree, a Platonic 'ideal syntax' for a
'classic block-structured' programming language, and to me, C came pretty
close to it.

I except LISP from that assessment, because LISP is built around a
fundamentally different model of how computations/algorithms are organized,
and C and LISP aren't directly comparable.

But that realization points to a deeper bug with the 'Platonic ideal
language' concept above, which is that languages are fundamentally, albeit at
a very deep conceptual level, tied to the basic concept of the computing
hardware they are to run on. C/COBOL/FORTRAN/etc are all for von Neumann-like
(in a broad sense) computing engines - a single thread of computation, which
happens sequentially.

But we've pushed that paradigm about as far as it can go, we're into
diminishing returns territory on that one. The future, starting with the
hardware, will be very different - and will need quite different languages.
(Go, from what little I know of it, is a baby step in this direction - it is
intended to make it easy to use multiple simultaneous loci of execution,
making use of the mutiple cores that are common now.)

I suspect we'll be shifting to radically different paradigms, 50 years from
now - massively parallel computing meshes (think Connection Machines on
steroids - or the human brain), and those will use fundamentally different
computing paradigms, and programming languages for them, which in turn will
need very different syntax.


             reply	other threads:[~2022-01-02  4:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-02  4:02 Noel Chiappa [this message]
2022-01-02 10:46 ` markus schnalke
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-01-02  4:10 Douglas McIlroy
2021-12-31 15:47 [TUHS] roff(7) Douglas McIlroy
2021-12-31 23:07 ` George Michaelson
2021-12-31 23:40   ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-01 20:00     ` [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ] Jon Steinhart
2022-01-02  0:12       ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-02  1:04         ` John Cowan
2022-01-02  1:20           ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-02  1:47             ` Steve Nickolas
2022-01-02  2:12               ` Larry McVoy
2022-01-02  3:56               ` Jon Steinhart
2022-01-02  1:48             ` Jon Steinhart
2022-01-02  3:04             ` John Cowan
2022-01-02  3:30               ` Warner Losh

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [TUHS] roff(7) [ and other related stuff ]' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).