@screwlisp is having some site connectivity problems so asked me to remind everyone that we'll be on the anonradio forum at the top of the hour (a bit less than ten minutes hence) for those who like that kind of thing:
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
This was post-Algol-68, but evidently the DEC folks were not happy with Algol-68 (I found out later *nobody* was happy with Algol-68), so ... various footnotes about where they deviated from the spec; not that I had any reason to care at that point.
I encountered the recursive definition of factorial and I was like,
"That can't possibly work."
(the FORTRAN and Basic manuals were super clear about how each subprogram has its dedicated storage; calling one while it was still active is every bit an error like dividing by zero. You're just doing it wrong...)
5/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
Then there was the section on call-by-name (the default parameter passing convention for Algol)
... including a half page on Jenson's Device, that, I should note, was presented COMPLETELY UN-IRONICALLY because this was still 1972,
as in, "Here's this neat trick that you'll want to know about."
And my reaction was, "WTFF, why???"
and also, "That can't possibly work, either."
Not having any actual computers to play with yet, that was that for a while.
Some years later, I got to college and had my first actual programming course...
6/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
Then there was the section on call-by-name (the default parameter passing convention for Algol)
... including a half page on Jenson's Device, that, I should note, was presented COMPLETELY UN-IRONICALLY because this was still 1972,
as in, "Here's this neat trick that you'll want to know about."
And my reaction was, "WTFF, why???"
and also, "That can't possibly work, either."
Not having any actual computers to play with yet, that was that for a while.
Some years later, I got to college and had my first actual programming course...
6/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
... in Pascal.. And there I finally learned about and was able to get used to using recursion.
Although I'd say I didn't *really* get it until the following semester taking the assembler course and learning about *stacks*.
It was like recursion was sufficiently weird that I didn't really want to trust it until/unless I had a sense of what was actually happening under the hood,
And THEN it was cool.
7/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
... in Pascal.. And there I finally learned about and was able to get used to using recursion.
Although I'd say I didn't *really* get it until the following semester taking the assembler course and learning about *stacks*.
It was like recursion was sufficiently weird that I didn't really want to trust it until/unless I had a sense of what was actually happening under the hood,
And THEN it was cool.
7/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To the point where, the following summer as an intern, I was needing to write a tree walk, and I wrote it in FORTRAN โ because that's what was available at AT&T Basking Ridge (long story) โ using fake recursion (local vars get dimensions as arrays, every call/return becomes a computed goto, you get the ideaโฆ) because I wanted to see if this *could* actually be done in FORTRAN, and it could, and it worked, and there was much rejoicing; I think my supervisor (who, to be fair, was not really a programmer) blue-screened on that one.
And *then* I tried to explain it all to my dad...
8/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To the point where, the following summer as an intern, I was needing to write a tree walk, and I wrote it in FORTRAN โ because that's what was available at AT&T Basking Ridge (long story) โ using fake recursion (local vars get dimensions as arrays, every call/return becomes a computed goto, you get the ideaโฆ) because I wanted to see if this *could* actually be done in FORTRAN, and it could, and it worked, and there was much rejoicing; I think my supervisor (who, to be fair, was not really a programmer) blue-screened on that one.
And *then* I tried to explain it all to my dad...
8/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
And, to be fair, by then, he had changed jobs/companies, moved up to the bottom tier of management, wasn't using The Computer anymore, so maybe the interest had waned.
But it struck me that I was never able to get past showing him the factorial function and,
"That can't possibly work."
He had basically accepted the FORTRAN model of things and that was that.
Later, when he retired he got one of the early PC clones and then spent vast amounts of time messing with spreadsheets.
9/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To the point where, the following summer as an intern, I was needing to write a tree walk, and I wrote it in FORTRAN โ because that's what was available at AT&T Basking Ridge (long story) โ using fake recursion (local vars get dimensions as arrays, every call/return becomes a computed goto, you get the ideaโฆ) because I wanted to see if this *could* actually be done in FORTRAN, and it could, and it worked, and there was much rejoicing; I think my supervisor (who, to be fair, was not really a programmer) blue-screened on that one.
And *then* I tried to explain it all to my dad...
8/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
You may say that untyped lambda calculus and SKI combinatory calculus and so on) are all *dreadful* in terms of expressiveness, and I will probably agree,
... but it also seems to me that Barendregt got pretty good at it.
I'm also guessing TECO wouldn't have existed without there being people who managed to wrap their brains around it and found it to be expressive and concise. I myself never got there (also never really tried TBH),
... but at the same time, it's *still* the case that if I need to write a one-liner to do something, chances are, I'll be doing it in Perl, and I've heard people complain about *that* language being essentially write-only line-noise.
10/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
You may say that untyped lambda calculus and SKI combinatory calculus and so on) are all *dreadful* in terms of expressiveness, and I will probably agree,
... but it also seems to me that Barendregt got pretty good at it.
I'm also guessing TECO wouldn't have existed without there being people who managed to wrap their brains around it and found it to be expressive and concise. I myself never got there (also never really tried TBH),
... but at the same time, it's *still* the case that if I need to write a one-liner to do something, chances are, I'll be doing it in Perl, and I've heard people complain about *that* language being essentially write-only line-noise.
10/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To be sure, my Perl tends to be more structured.
On the other hand, I also hate Moose (Perl's attempt at CLOS) and have thus far succeeded in keeping that out of my life.
I also remember there being a time in my life when I could read and understand APL.
But if you do think it's possible to come up with some kind of useful formal definition/criterion for "expressiveness", go for it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
11/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To be sure, my Perl tends to be more structured.
On the other hand, I also hate Moose (Perl's attempt at CLOS) and have thus far succeeded in keeping that out of my life.
I also remember there being a time in my life when I could read and understand APL.
But if you do think it's possible to come up with some kind of useful formal definition/criterion for "expressiveness", go for it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
11/11
@wrog
Thank-you for the wonderful autobiography!
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @cdegroot -
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To be sure, my Perl tends to be more structured.
On the other hand, I also hate Moose (Perl's attempt at CLOS) and have thus far succeeded in keeping that out of my life.
I also remember there being a time in my life when I could read and understand APL.
But if you do think it's possible to come up with some kind of useful formal definition/criterion for "expressiveness", go for it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
11/11
@wrog@mastodon.murkworks.net your story about learning recursion in Algol reminded me of a story that was told about how Edsger Dijkstra influenced the Algol spec (through a personal conversation with I think John Bakus) to include what we now understand as a "function call," by specifying the calling convention for how the stack must be modified before the subroutine call and after the return. I first heard the story in a YouTube video called, "How the stack got stacked".
Regarding "expressiveness," you do make a good point about it (possibly) being fundamentally a subjective thing, like "intelligence." Personally, I never felt the restrictions in Haskell made it any less expressive as a language.
It is interesting how you can express some incredibly complex algorithms with very few characters in APL. Reducing function names to individual symbols and applied as operators does make the language much more concise, but is "concise" a necessary condition for "expressive?"
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @kentpitman@climatejustice.social @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @cdegroot@mstdn.ca
-
@wrog@mastodon.murkworks.net your story about learning recursion in Algol reminded me of a story that was told about how Edsger Dijkstra influenced the Algol spec (through a personal conversation with I think John Bakus) to include what we now understand as a "function call," by specifying the calling convention for how the stack must be modified before the subroutine call and after the return. I first heard the story in a YouTube video called, "How the stack got stacked".
Regarding "expressiveness," you do make a good point about it (possibly) being fundamentally a subjective thing, like "intelligence." Personally, I never felt the restrictions in Haskell made it any less expressive as a language.
It is interesting how you can express some incredibly complex algorithms with very few characters in APL. Reducing function names to individual symbols and applied as operators does make the language much more concise, but is "concise" a necessary condition for "expressive?"
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @kentpitman@climatejustice.social @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @cdegroot@mstdn.ca
@ramin_hal9001
Some clearly prefer concise, but nonetheless it is orthogonal to expressive.'Expressive' != 'my favorite approach' -- ideally expressiveness can be determined objectively by human factors studies.
Failing that, sure, it's then subjective and subject to unbounded argument.
-
@wrog
Thank-you for the wonderful autobiography!
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @cdegroot@wrog
Yes, thanks, I liked reading that. -
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
You may say that untyped lambda calculus and SKI combinatory calculus and so on) are all *dreadful* in terms of expressiveness, and I will probably agree,
... but it also seems to me that Barendregt got pretty good at it.
I'm also guessing TECO wouldn't have existed without there being people who managed to wrap their brains around it and found it to be expressive and concise. I myself never got there (also never really tried TBH),
... but at the same time, it's *still* the case that if I need to write a one-liner to do something, chances are, I'll be doing it in Perl, and I've heard people complain about *that* language being essentially write-only line-noise.
10/11
@wrog
> I'm also guessing TECO wouldn't have existed without there being people who managed to wrap their brains around it and found it to be expressive and concise. I myself never got there (also never really tried TBH),I'm one of those people, BTW. My proof is that I wrote a closed-loop stick figure ASCII animation juggling three balls.
As with any complex TECO thing, the resulting code was write-only -- and that was always the problem with even mildly powerful TECO macros.
Perl at its worst can be described as write-only line noise, yes, but in my experience is *STILL* better than TECO!
I am indeed fortunate to be able to stick with Emacs and Vi.
-
@wrog
> I'm also guessing TECO wouldn't have existed without there being people who managed to wrap their brains around it and found it to be expressive and concise. I myself never got there (also never really tried TBH),I'm one of those people, BTW. My proof is that I wrote a closed-loop stick figure ASCII animation juggling three balls.
As with any complex TECO thing, the resulting code was write-only -- and that was always the problem with even mildly powerful TECO macros.
Perl at its worst can be described as write-only line noise, yes, but in my experience is *STILL* better than TECO!
I am indeed fortunate to be able to stick with Emacs and Vi.
@dougmerritt @wrog @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
TECO was a necessary innovation under word-addressed memory. With 36 bits per word, you couldn't afford that much space for an instruction. 5 7-bit bytes (with a bit left over) 8n one word was a lot more compact than an assembly instruction. With only 256 KW (kilowords) total addressable in 18 bits, you had to get all the power packed in you could. And we didn't have WYSIWYG yet, and most computer people couldn't type. So it would make a lot more sense to you if you were doing hunt and peck with almost no visibility into what you're changing. Typing -3cifoo$$ to mean go back three characters and insert foo and show me what the few characters around my cursor look like was extremely natural in context. That it became a programming language was a natural extension of that so that you didn't have to keep typing the same things over and over again.
-
@dougmerritt @wrog @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
TECO was a necessary innovation under word-addressed memory. With 36 bits per word, you couldn't afford that much space for an instruction. 5 7-bit bytes (with a bit left over) 8n one word was a lot more compact than an assembly instruction. With only 256 KW (kilowords) total addressable in 18 bits, you had to get all the power packed in you could. And we didn't have WYSIWYG yet, and most computer people couldn't type. So it would make a lot more sense to you if you were doing hunt and peck with almost no visibility into what you're changing. Typing -3cifoo$$ to mean go back three characters and insert foo and show me what the few characters around my cursor look like was extremely natural in context. That it became a programming language was a natural extension of that so that you didn't have to keep typing the same things over and over again.
@dougmerritt @wrog @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
In effect, a Q register, what passed for storage in TECO, was something you can name in one bite. So 1,2mA meaning call what's in A with args 1 and 2 was a high-level language function call with two arguments that fit into a single machine word. Even the PDP-10 pushj instruction, which was pretty sophisticated as a way of calling a function, couldn't pass arguments with that degree of compactness.
-
@dougmerritt @wrog @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
In effect, a Q register, what passed for storage in TECO, was something you can name in one bite. So 1,2mA meaning call what's in A with args 1 and 2 was a high-level language function call with two arguments that fit into a single machine word. Even the PDP-10 pushj instruction, which was pretty sophisticated as a way of calling a function, couldn't pass arguments with that degree of compactness.
@kentpitman
As usual, Kent, an excellent description -- and I had forgotten some of those details, but yes, those were very real advantages. -
@kentpitman
As usual, Kent, an excellent description -- and I had forgotten some of those details, but yes, those were very real advantages.@kentpitman
Incidentally, I did *not* hate TECO at the time. I'm just remarking on some fairly objective issues with it.But at the time, I really appreciated its power (even though for me this was after using vi and emacs).
Also, if one reads about its history in the literature, about how it originally worked in 8 KB with a sliding window on files, and then later versions added more and more commands and power, it all makes sense as an organic 4D creation.
Which is true of most software that one is sympathetic to.
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
To be sure, my Perl tends to be more structured.
On the other hand, I also hate Moose (Perl's attempt at CLOS) and have thus far succeeded in keeping that out of my life.
I also remember there being a time in my life when I could read and understand APL.
But if you do think it's possible to come up with some kind of useful formal definition/criterion for "expressiveness", go for it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
11/11
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
... and, crap, I messed up the threading (it seems 9 and 10 are siblings, so you'll miss 9 if you're reading from here. 9 is kind of the point. Go back to 8.)
(I hate this UI. If anybody's written an emacs fediverse-protocol thing for doing long threaded posts please point me to it, otherwise it looks like I'm going to have to write one ...)
๐/11
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
... and, crap, I messed up the threading (it seems 9 and 10 are siblings, so you'll miss 9 if you're reading from here. 9 is kind of the point. Go back to 8.)
(I hate this UI. If anybody's written an emacs fediverse-protocol thing for doing long threaded posts please point me to it, otherwise it looks like I'm going to have to write one ...)
๐/11
@wrog @dougmerritt @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
It's a bit low tech but if you noticed it in time that other people don't have a ton of other stuff attached to it, just save the text, delete the old post, attach the new. Someone could make that be a single operation in a client and even have it send mail to the people who attached replies saying here's your text if you want to attach it to the new post. Or you could attach your own post with their text in it. Low-tech as it is, existing tools offer us a lot more options than sometimes people see. I'm sure you could have figured this out, and are more fussing at the tedium, but just for fun I'm going to cross reference a related but different scenario...
-
@dougmerritt @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp @cdegroot
... and, crap, I messed up the threading (it seems 9 and 10 are siblings, so you'll miss 9 if you're reading from here. 9 is kind of the point. Go back to 8.)
(I hate this UI. If anybody's written an emacs fediverse-protocol thing for doing long threaded posts please point me to it, otherwise it looks like I'm going to have to write one ...)
๐/11
@wrog
> (I hate this UI. If anybody's written an emacs fediverse-protocol thing for doing long threaded posts please point me to it, otherwise it looks like I'm going to have to write one ...)There are *so* many programmers using variants of this UI that you would think someone would have addressed it by now.
But you never know, maybe not. Certainly everyone who does multi-posts seems to be struggling with doing it by hand, from my point of view, so that would seem to cry out for the need for some fancier textpost-splitting auto-sequence-number thingie, in emacs or command line or something.
Conceivably a web search would find the thing if it exists. I personally almost never do long posts, so I just grin and bear it when it comes up.
-
@wrog
> (I hate this UI. If anybody's written an emacs fediverse-protocol thing for doing long threaded posts please point me to it, otherwise it looks like I'm going to have to write one ...)There are *so* many programmers using variants of this UI that you would think someone would have addressed it by now.
But you never know, maybe not. Certainly everyone who does multi-posts seems to be struggling with doing it by hand, from my point of view, so that would seem to cry out for the need for some fancier textpost-splitting auto-sequence-number thingie, in emacs or command line or something.
Conceivably a web search would find the thing if it exists. I personally almost never do long posts, so I just grin and bear it when it comes up.
I think for protocol reasons it is necessary to try and connect up the thread using quote-posts, however any particular client understands that.
If you visit the topmost toot of the thread, you at least get the whole (cons) tree.
@dougmerritt @wrog @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @cdegroot -
I think for protocol reasons it is necessary to try and connect up the thread using quote-posts, however any particular client understands that.
If you visit the topmost toot of the thread, you at least get the whole (cons) tree.
@dougmerritt @wrog @kentpitman @ramin_hal9001 @cdegroot@screwlisp
Y'all are misunderstanding. Due to the error-prone nature of labelling a series of posts, from one way of viewing he skipped post 9, and 8 linked to 10.Another view showed simply the correct sequence.
Regardless, anyone who has written e.g. "3/n" on a post is already implicitly indicating a desire for automation.
