Did good ol' 1970's and 80's procedural programming ever work? Should we go back to programming like primitive 20th century savages?
We need a new programming paradigm to transcend functional and OOP. It should be a feminist programming language to correct injustices of masculine influence upon programming languages. The compiler should interpret the code to mean whatever the compiler (or runtime system) thinks it should mean at the moment. The language documentation should not impost strict semantic requirements upon certain language constructs. The programmer should magically know in advance how the compiler and runtime system will interpret its meaning later on.
-- The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
Do you ever feel like functional code stuck in an OOP paradigm? Or OOP code restricted by functional constructs? We need more paradigm fluid languages. Just set your gender flag at compile or at interpretation and the language becomes the paradigm you feel like. Typing is dynamic unless set static by runtime. The language's grammar should be inclusive, so Javasript, Ruby, Perl, PHP, Java, C/C++, assembly, Brainfuck... all developers will feel welcome. And it should work on all platforms too, portable to any architecture. And all code will be memory safe with garbage collection, unless you feel promiscuous and disable the safe bit. Just remember your safeword in case the program goes too far and it will return you back to your safe space.
For some reason, ternary [wikipedia.org] didn't take off, but on the other hand, it was proven by Shannon that any Turing machine can be reduced to a binary Turing machine, and most computer scientists agree that Turing’s, or any other logically equivalent, formal notion captures all computable problems, viz. for any computable problem, there is a Turing machine which computes it. ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/ [stanford.edu] ). The original Turing machine used more than just binary. What this means is that you are free to use whichever number-base suits your fancy, but it can always be reduce to a binary Turing machine.
That is pretty +1 Funny, but I wonder how the pioneers of programming languages like Grace Hopper [wikipedia.org] would feel about today's tribal silliness seemingly infesting almost everything these days, including something like programming languages?
I wonder how the pioneers of programming languages . . . would feel about today's tribal silliness seemingly infesting almost everything these days
I think they would weep for the future.
They would wonder what could possibly have gone wrong?
How could people (1) become unteatherd from reality and (2) others make fun of this condition.
They would wonder how could we go from debating public policy such as taxes, size of government, etc to talking about secret Jewish space lasers or having self proclaimed 'patriots' try to overthrow the government while their supporters both cheer them on yet deny the obvious reality of what they were actually doing.
-- The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
I always considered this a silly holy war because I don't think there's as sharp a line between functional, OOP, and procedural as some of the partisans think.
You can write C and LISP that is very similar to object-oriented code, with a carefully defined data structure and associated functions that operate on that structure. You can write C and Java that is very similar to functional programming, with a strong emphasis on recursion, data moving up and down the call stack, list-like data structures, and function references that operate kinda like lambdas. You can write Java and LISP that is very similar to procedural code, with a hunk of data that's stored separate from the functions, and a collection of functions that each contain a sequence of instructions to manipulate that hunk of data. You even have languages that try to allow a combination of some or all of these approaches, like Python.
And they're all good for solving the kinds of problems they were designed to solve. So if you know how to coax the language you're using (either by choice or by demand) into using that approach, you can use the way of thinking best-suited for explaining what you're doing clearly.
-- The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 02 2022, @08:44PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday April 02 2022, @08:44PM (#1234416)
Wait, the sex that wants to get paid the same for the same work and afforded equal opportunities to get jobs is somehow the illogical sex that "should interpret the code to mean whatever the compiler (or runtime system) thinks it should mean at the moment"? Really?
I know it's common to depict feminists as humorless. I have a fine sense of humor. That was just a bad joke.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Monday March 21 2022, @01:28PM (10 children)
What about good ol' procedural programming?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday March 23 2022, @03:50PM (9 children)
Did good ol' 1970's and 80's procedural programming ever work? Should we go back to programming like primitive 20th century savages?
We need a new programming paradigm to transcend functional and OOP. It should be a feminist programming language to correct injustices of masculine influence upon programming languages. The compiler should interpret the code to mean whatever the compiler (or runtime system) thinks it should mean at the moment. The language documentation should not impost strict semantic requirements upon certain language constructs. The programmer should magically know in advance how the compiler and runtime system will interpret its meaning later on.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DECbot on Wednesday March 23 2022, @04:46PM (4 children)
Do you ever feel like functional code stuck in an OOP paradigm? Or OOP code restricted by functional constructs? We need more paradigm fluid languages. Just set your gender flag at compile or at interpretation and the language becomes the paradigm you feel like. Typing is dynamic unless set static by runtime. The language's grammar should be inclusive, so Javasript, Ruby, Perl, PHP, Java, C/C++, assembly, Brainfuck... all developers will feel welcome. And it should work on all platforms too, portable to any architecture. And all code will be memory safe with garbage collection, unless you feel promiscuous and disable the safe bit. Just remember your safeword in case the program goes too far and it will return you back to your safe space.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 24 2022, @01:53AM (1 child)
Isn't all of that basically the Java sales pitch from 1999?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday March 28 2022, @07:19PM
Peak software wokeness has already passed. All that remains are edge cases.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 24 2022, @12:27PM (1 child)
You are still supporting the oppressive patriarchy by running your code on a processor that only supports binary representation
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pTamok on Tuesday March 29 2022, @11:18AM
For some reason, ternary [wikipedia.org] didn't take off, but on the other hand, it was proven by Shannon that any Turing machine can be reduced to a binary Turing machine, and most computer scientists agree that Turing’s, or any other logically equivalent, formal notion captures all computable problems, viz. for any computable problem, there is a Turing machine which computes it. ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/ [stanford.edu] ). The original Turing machine used more than just binary.
What this means is that you are free to use whichever number-base suits your fancy, but it can always be reduce to a binary Turing machine.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday March 23 2022, @05:09PM (2 children)
That is pretty +1 Funny, but I wonder how the pioneers of programming languages like Grace Hopper [wikipedia.org] would feel about today's tribal silliness seemingly infesting almost everything these days, including something like programming languages?
She didn't invent programming languages, but "Hopper was the first to devise the theory of machine-independent programming languages, and the FLOW-MATIC programming language she created using this theory was later extended to create COBOL, an early high-level programming language still in use today." [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 23 2022, @05:22PM
I think they would weep for the future.
They would wonder what could possibly have gone wrong?
How could people (1) become unteatherd from reality and (2) others make fun of this condition.
They would wonder how could we go from debating public policy such as taxes, size of government, etc to talking about secret Jewish space lasers or having self proclaimed 'patriots' try to overthrow the government while their supporters both cheer them on yet deny the obvious reality of what they were actually doing.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 25 2022, @07:52PM
I always considered this a silly holy war because I don't think there's as sharp a line between functional, OOP, and procedural as some of the partisans think.
You can write C and LISP that is very similar to object-oriented code, with a carefully defined data structure and associated functions that operate on that structure.
You can write C and Java that is very similar to functional programming, with a strong emphasis on recursion, data moving up and down the call stack, list-like data structures, and function references that operate kinda like lambdas.
You can write Java and LISP that is very similar to procedural code, with a hunk of data that's stored separate from the functions, and a collection of functions that each contain a sequence of instructions to manipulate that hunk of data.
You even have languages that try to allow a combination of some or all of these approaches, like Python.
And they're all good for solving the kinds of problems they were designed to solve. So if you know how to coax the language you're using (either by choice or by demand) into using that approach, you can use the way of thinking best-suited for explaining what you're doing clearly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 02 2022, @08:44PM
Wait, the sex that wants to get paid the same for the same work and afforded equal opportunities to get jobs is somehow the illogical sex that "should interpret the code to mean whatever the compiler (or runtime system) thinks it should mean at the moment"? Really?
I know it's common to depict feminists as humorless. I have a fine sense of humor. That was just a bad joke.