One conclusion I drew from the wildly divergent comments on the HOPL-2 paper - and from many other sources - is that there is no agreement on what a programming language really is and what its main purpose is supposed to be. Is a programming language a tool for instructing machines? A means of communicating between programmers? A vehicle for expressing high-level designs? A notation for algorithms? A way of expressing relationships between concepts? A tool for experimentation? A means of controlling computerized devices?My view is that a general-purpose programming language must be all of those to serve its diverse set of users. The only thing a language cannot be - and survive - is a mere collection of "neat'' features.
The difference in opinions reflects differing views of what... (查看原文)
This implies that language design parts ways from the "purer'' and more abstract disciplines such as mathematics and philosophy. To serve its users, a general-purpose programming language must be eclectic and take many practical and sociological factors into account. In particular, every language is designed to solve a particular set ofproblems at a particular time according to the understanding of a particular group of people. From this initial design, it grows to meet new demands and reflects new understandings of problems and of tools and techniques for solving them. This view is pragmatic, yet not unprincipled. It is my firm belief that all successful languages are grown and not merely designed from first principles. Principles underlie the firstdesign and guide the further evolution o... (查看原文)
