iphonelagi at gmail.com
Thu May 25 12:13:14 CEST 2017
You might want to watch this 1 hour ish video by Bret Victor as you are
I've seen a good few of his talks over the years and read a lot of his
If you think it's too long just got to either 2:30 or 10:30 (that one is
mind blowing) but I'd suggest you listen to the whole lecture.
This is the Ultimate IDE but his ideas about programming also cover what
Mark W. was saying about not being able to remember the order of
parameters. That was in a different talk or on his website - i'll try and
dig it out.
On 25 May 2017 at 09:10, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> On 2017-05-24 23:47, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
>> On 05/24/2017 08:03 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>> Syntax is an emotive issue (I could beat Python to death with some of the
>>> decisions they have made about syntax - but yet I still use it and slightly
>>> enjoy doing so for the purposes I use it for) - but it is not the
>> I could say the same for any of the computer languages I use.
> Very true.
> Of course, the thing here is that (in general) we have more control over
> the grammar and semantics of *programming languages* with constraints of
> In a new language, we have complete control so (in theory) it should be
> possible to be unambiguous, consistent and intuitive as far as is
> possible... Assuming that one has 100% foresight and knows everything at
> the point of design. Failing that, one just does not add features until one
> is sure that they 'correct' (for some definition of 'correct') cf: switch
> in LCB.
> In an existing language, we have significant constraints with regards
> backwards-compatibility and consistency to what is already there. In many
> cases, inconsistencies or un-intuitive is actually what you might call 'a
> lack of abstraction of a pattern' - an idea has been implemented for
> specific cases, but is actually an instance of a more general abstraction
> underneath. Of course in other cases, they come about because the remit of
> things that were considered when they were added was not wide enough and
> friction develops between what you have at the point of implementation, and
> what occurs to you later down the line (in some cases, many many years down
> the line).
> The former generally allows things to evolve in a backwards-compatible
> way, but the latter it is a great deal harder - however that's where some
> sort of 'language versioning' mechanism (e.g. scriptVersion) can help. Of
> course you need the infrastructure for the latter to be able to make
> progress on those fronts - something we don't *yet* have in LCS.
> And not just computer languages- the various forms of the irregular
>> verbs for instance...
>> Old English am had two plural forms: 1. sind/sindon, sie and 2.
>> earon/aron. The s- form (also used in the subjunctive) fell from
>> English in the early 13c. (though its cousin continues in German sind,
>> the 3rd person plural of "to be") and was replaced by forms of be, but
>> aron (see are) continued, and as am and be merged it encroached on
>> some uses that previously had belonged to be. By the early 1500s it
>> had established its place in standard English.
> Hehe - I think I understand English's irregular verbs better now :)
> Warmest Regards,
> Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode