richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Thu May 25 07:33:21 EDT 2017
Can you post the URL to that video, please?
On 5/25/17 1:13 pm, Lagi Pittas via use-livecode wrote:
> 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.
> Regards Lagi
> 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:
> 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