C# creater wants to go where REBOL already is
[1/3] from: chris::langreiter::com at: 14-Feb-2002 15:50
He is examining more declarative programming languages. (This was
slightly embarrassingly for us - at the time we couldn't remember the
name of the best best known of these, Mercury, which has been
recommended to us very warmly, and for which Microsoft is helping
develop a .NET back end. Not wanting to refer to
that Australian one"
we didn't solicit his opinion on Mercury itself.)
You've got to get there without taking away the tools people have
today. The problem with declarative languages is that they've been
domain specific. The trick is finding a combination of declarative and
imperative, and that's not impossible.
Does that sound somewhat like REBOL (or Lisp, for that matter)?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24056.html
[2/3] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 14-Feb-2002 12:14
Hi Christian,
The most telling, and accurate, paragraph for me:
Rather modestly, Anders downplays the design of the language in the bigger
scheme of things. After all, he says, learning the API now takes up 97 per
cent of the programmer's craft: learning the language takes up three per
cent.
--Gregg
[3/3] from: carl:cybercraft at: 15-Feb-2002 13:00
On 15-Feb-02, Gregg Irwin wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> The most telling, and accurate, paragraph for me:
> "Rather modestly, Anders downplays the design of the language in the
> bigger scheme of things. After all, he says, learning the API now
> takes up 97 per cent of the programmer's craft: learning the
> language takes up three per cent."
Is he refering to properly or improperly documented APIs? (;
--
Carl Read