Re: Programming?

["Ralph M. Deal" <deal@xxxxxxxx>]

Long may this dangling discussion endure.

> >Nice to have a discussion of arcane languages arise from a discussion of
> >preferable beginning computer languages!
> Arcane?

So feel some, alas.
 
> Recursion is a wunnerful thing; APL was one of the first (other than LISP) to 
> promulgate it.

And quite challenging to teach.
 
> ML is the paradigmatic functional language. Iverson's newest creation, called J
> (single letter language names seem so vogue), is more functional than APL, and
> there are a number of people working on "function arrays", as an outgrowth of
> all this. Iverson's notion does not go quite this far, but tends to isolate
> sets of functions into "trains"... interesting stuff!

New to me.  I like ML, might like J better.

> Well, the people who use it well seem to naturally intelligent :). LISP is
> being used to protoype lots of pattern-matching stuff as well, over complex 
> data fields.

Got to catch up on these current applications.  Again, suggested source?
 
> Tor- Tor- something.

Must be a castle in the mists of the web.

> Some things are targets of ridicule, but others find them useful. Times,
> fashions change. an old generation moves on, and a newer players find value
> where others did not.

Ou - waxing philosophical.  Great for us oldtimers, these rejuvenations.
 
> >>That project turned into UNIX. Actually, there are ideas from APL in
> >> UNIX, but that's another story.
> >Do you know where that link is demonstrated?  Interesting.
> Look at a lot of the UNIX utilties, for example. They are "glued" together 
> with pipes. Consider these utilities to be functions, and you can compose 
> statements from these functions to form very compact and concise statements
> that do many, many things. Consider that a script is very much like a user-
> defined function, itself a composition of supplied functions and other user-
> defined functions. Well-written sets of scripts gain from this kind of modular,
> functional decomposition.

I'll look for those features as I dig back into APL.

> >Real macho programming style.  I remember spending several minutes to
> >figure out what each line did as I tried to understand APL code without
> >really learning it.
> I went through that phase, but then Leasure Suits went out and I discovered 
> better coding style. 

Now as my daughter's used to say,  that is rude! Happy to say I never
owned one.
 
> In my old age, I'm a real wimp! I comment code fairly heavily, write a comment
> as the first line of every function, and have some blank lines to seperate
> sections of functions where appropriate. My comments tend to focus on the WHY
> of things, and the statements themselves are short and simple enough to be
> readable. I try not to code any one function longer than the  panel size that
> is comfortable to look at, so (ideally) I can see the whole function, comments
> and all, at the same time.

I love it!
 
> The whole idea is to write the code as if I'm never coming back, and the Future
> Of The World As We Know It depends upon someone else picking this stuff up and
> maintaining it.

For those of us who have inherited programs written by 'real
hackers', your style deserves a hero medal, not a wimp badge.
 
> >>The coding style that is encouraged these days is more open,...
> >Where can I find a source from which I can learn APL in this style?
> The easiest place to go would be to the USENET newsgroup comp.lang.apl,
> there is a FAQ posted there about monthly that lists a lot of sources for
> APL books, journals, software, and instructors.
 
Just what I needed.

> >>I've kind of heard a wee bit about LOGO, but never actually saw or used it.
...
> Hmmm... interesting, thanks. Here's another example of a language which
> is not being proposed as the Language To Write All Applications, but fits 
> nicely into a role a some stage of the learning process.

Right.  Let many flowers flourish. (what IS that quotation?)

> >It worked in the classroom only when the teacher understood LOGO as an
> >exploratory tool....
> IMO this is true for just about EVERY teaching tool.

I'll have to check that out with my tough education professional spouse.
When I lecture, am I an exploratory tool?  Well I've been called worse in
that position...

Thanks, Bob,    Ralph  deal@kzoo.edu