On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:35:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Ali Çehreli:
> Sometimes I have feeling language researchers live in some strange imaginary world and never actually check how their

Lambda the Ultimate and Javaland.

Am 12.11.2013 17:10, schrieb eles:
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:35:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>> Ali Çehreli:
>> Sometimes I have feeling language researchers live in some strange
>> imaginary world and never actually check how their
>
> Lambda the Ultimate and Javaland.

Well, in defence of Javaland, it is a consequence how easy it is for enterprise architects to try out their crazy ideas in Java.

Except for a few years at CERN, I always worked in enterprise land, so
I have seen FactoryFactoryAbstractThingy being done in:

- C based platform which used its own concept of pointers, requiring conversions between framework pointers and C pointers

- A Frankenstein framework done in CORBA with a healthy mix of C++ and Perl code

- A Perl framework for generating code for control of telecommunication networks with a thousands plugins, which affected the way the whole code
generation was done, requiring multiple passes

- A transformation engine done in XML/XSLT (yes really!) with a JavaScript API being called from a Java driver application

- A framework done on top of J2EE, as if J2EE wasn't enough

Better stop here. :)

--
Paulo

On 11/12/13 12:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Ali Çehreli:
>>
>>> The author claims to have done programming language research. So, I
>>> guess he knows about D.
>>
>> From what I am seeing in the last years in the good Lambda the
>> Ultimate Blog, most people doing programming language research know
>> everything about monads and zippers, but ignore D :-)
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> Sometimes I have feeling language researchers live in some strange
> imaginary world and never actually check how their ideas work in
> production code.

It isn't just a feeling :)

Ary Borenszweig:

> It isn't just a feeling :)

Researchers are mostly judged and paid (and career advancements are mostly based) on the amount and "impact" of papers written. It's uncommon for "how ideas work in production code" to have a positive influence on career. To this you have to add the fact that if they pay you to study and invent new ideas, and you want to have fun inventing them, you will go look where are the cutest puzzles to solve (like very complex functional tricks).

This is causing a bad and costly disconnect between practice and research in computer science and coding, and this is hurting our society. Even researchers in the private sector like at Microsoft are plagued with a very low ROI because of that.

To solve this problem there is a growing need to tie the career advancements and pay of computer science researchers to the solution of practical problems. I love free basic research, but here there is a growing problem in need to be solved, for the society.

The situation is improving only a little, but this far from enough:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/17/the-journal-science-free-the-code/

Bye,
bearophile

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 17:59:50 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 12.11.2013 17:10, schrieb eles:
>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:35:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Ali Çehreli:
>>> Sometimes I have feeling language researchers live in some strange
>>> imaginary world and never actually check how their
>>
>> Lambda the Ultimate and Javaland.
>
> Well, in defence of Javaland, it is a consequence how easy it

I hesitated to add Javaland to the list, exactly because of that. I believe it was successful because, first, was designed *by a company* (just like C# is) and, second, because it was mostly like C++ but with increased verbosity (and that means less cryptic and easier to follow a diff).

I am not the first to consider that Java's verbosity is a good thing for a company. But, I confirm that: in my day-to-day job, we use C (and some C++). You would be amazed how much our guidelines lead us towards increased verbosity (names, annotations/comments, declarations).

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 17:59:50 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 12.11.2013 17:10, schrieb eles:
>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:35:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Ali Çehreli:

> - C based platform which used its own concept of pointers, requiring conversions between framework pointers and C pointers

Encountered that too. Nobody ever tried to re-factor afterwards. We ended up rewriting everything from scratch.

There seem to be a lot of developers who genuinely believe that Go increases their productivity, for what it's worth. This thread is quite interesting: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/29RsB_nfTYA; a developer there finds the productivity benefits from using Go sufficient to justify going through the process of converting objdump'd c assembly into opcodes written in Plan 9 assembly syntax just to use AVX2 instructions (which the Plan 9 assembler used by Go doesn't support). Not to mention that they're also directly writing assembly themselves, due to the Go compiler's lack of intrinsics.

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:24:23 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:39:23 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
>> Also, in the spirit of non-technical discussion, pro-D stuff, see slide 26: http://www.slideshare.net/jpetazzo/docker-and-go-why-did-we-decide-to-write-docker-in-go
>
> Yes, Go has a big PR rolling machine on the web.
>
> Given its spartan set of features and religious decisions, I doubt anyone would care, if it wasn't being developed at Google.
>
> On the other hand, more people using strong typed languages with GC support as C and C++ replacement, is always positive.
>
> Hopefully D will also have a piece of the pie.
>
> --
> Paulo

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:09:24 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
> I think you will be pleased with the argument, given D's philosophy:
>
>     https://yinwang0.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/oop-fp/

Before learning D I was using Groovy as main language. At this point I had fullen in love with the three big paradigms functional, oop and proceduel. Neither true versions but nether the less loved it. When it came to wanting efficiency and exploring new ideas I even considered my own language.

Since Groovy I actually dont use much functional but still very useful.
This is why I no longer understand reasoning behind any one paradigm. A great example of why I hate pure oop is singletons. To me they are just a hack for procedural style. One that also confuses new developers.

These are just some reasons behind my love for D. And why I believe it is an appropriate first language.

 bearophile how much do you love haskell

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 03:46:17 UTC, logicchains wrote:
> There seem to be a lot of developers who genuinely believe that Go increases their productivity, for what it's worth. This thread is quite interesting: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/29RsB_nfTYA; a developer there finds the productivity benefits from using Go sufficient to justify going through the process of converting objdump'd c assembly into opcodes written in Plan 9 assembly syntax just to use AVX2 instructions (which the Plan 9 assembler used by Go doesn't support). Not to mention that they're also directly writing assembly themselves, due to the Go compiler's lack of intrinsics.
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:24:23 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:39:23 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
>>> Also, in the spirit of non-technical discussion, pro-D stuff, see slide 26: http://www.slideshare.net/jpetazzo/docker-and-go-why-did-we-decide-to-write-docker-in-go
>>
>> Yes, Go has a big PR rolling machine on the web.
>>
>> Given its spartan set of features and religious decisions, I doubt anyone would care, if it wasn't being developed at Google.
>>
>> On the other hand, more people using strong typed languages with GC support as C and C++ replacement, is always positive.
>>
>> Hopefully D will also have a piece of the pie.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo


It just shows the kind of distortion field Go developers suffer from.