/prog/ - Larry Wall on modern programming languages

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 11:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR8fQiskYII

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 11:59

Bjarne Stroustrup on Why the Programming Language C Is Obsolete

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPC3O1DVcg

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:08

Why do people say "close to metal" when they mean low level languages? Even Larry Wall. Bits from your codes may pass some copper, but they are destined to CPUs, which are silicon. So stop saying "close to metal", start saying "close to silicon".

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:12

>>1
I love how he tries to show Lisps as antique. He fears them because he knows they're better than Perl.

>>2
C++ is a domain specific language for manipulating matrices and GUI widgets. It sucks at everything else.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:13

>>3
Silicon is a metal.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:14

Larry Wall
Is he that faggot who bitched about Lisp syntax consisting of parens and then went to create some badly designed obfuscated ad-hoc C++ clone?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:33

>>4
>better than Perl
This is a tautology sir.

Also how do I do not quote like a faggot on /prog/?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:36

>>7
'>like this

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:45

>>4
>C++ is a domain specific language for manipulating matrices and GUI widgets. It sucks at everything else.
C++ sucks at gui widgets, because it has no garbage collection and no SEXPs (you have to use XML and HTML instead).

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:51

>>9
yep. I have also found that languages where nested expressions are easy to work with are ideal for GUI programming. Statement-based languages like C++ usually have to use XML as an expansion pack.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 13:00

>>10
See Qt for an example. It also has so called "MOC" - yet another confirmation of Greenspun's Rule

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 13:11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvWTnIoQZj4
So not Lisp. We can draw the conclusion that Lisp is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 14:23

>>12
Implying we weren't already aware of that fact.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 16:03

I like Stroustrup's answer:
"There is C, C++, C# and Java. Everything else is esoteric".
What a silly-head.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 19:11

>>14
The question was what languages does one need to know, and in that sense he's absolutely right. There are no professional coders who don't know at least one of those languages. Knowing any functional language is never necessary.

Larry Wall on modern programming languages

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 11:20

2 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 11:59

3 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:08

4 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:12

5 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:13

6 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:14

7 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:33

8 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:36

9 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:45

10 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 12:51

11 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 13:00

12 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 13:11

13 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 14:23

14 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 16:03

15 Name: Anonymous 2011-10-15 19:11