A suspicious person might begin to wonder if there was some correlation here. Even if I showed half a dozen powerful advantages. Linguists Edward Sapir Benjamin Whorf developed the hypothesis Many computer scientists and computational linguists believe that the hypothesis also applies to computer languages.
I can then isolate the common characteristics of ueber-languages and their proponents, and emphasize that both Blub and Flub are time-dependent variables.
Also remember that theoretical correctness and safety guarantees are old preoccupations of the industry, and Ada is well entrenched in some parts.
You should hope that it stays that way. Plus, although they may ascribe their success to Flub, it is actually only one of many factors, and the most important of these are talent and motivation.
This represents 'too much of a good idea' at least for people who like typing with normal keyboards. What kinds of bugs does the borrow-checker catch, you ask?
In Lisp, these programs are called macros. A disruptive startup is more likely to use Blub in creative ways, focusing on the idea, not the implementation. Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
Any advantage we could get in the software department, we would take. So the more expressive a language the better? And so on, until the calling function finally handles the error case. After a certain age, programmers rarely switch languages voluntarily.
People who can't ride a bicycle without training wheels, basically. Whatever language people happen to be used to, they tend to consider just good enough.
It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language. Time and exposure are the real test. It will call a function for you. Except there isn't such a beast. Then who owns it? Master of all I surveyed.) Actually, Blub is a hypothetical programming language Paul Graham invented when describing something very interesting: the Blub Paradox.
programming languages – The quot;blub paradox quot; and c – Software Lessons of Failure Language Flamewars and the Blub Paradox That would be the Blub Paradox. Jun 07, · Blub and Flub.
Paul Graham's classic essay Beating the Averages is well worth re-reading. It is the story of how, twenty years ago, Paul Graham and Robert Morris built an online store generator called Viaweb and out-manoeuvred their many competitors using their secret weapon, Lisp.
But it is much more than a success story with a fairytale ending. The essay only works because Graham picks the two sides of the debate: Lisp, which Graham believes to be the most powerful of languages, and Blub, a theoretical language that can be stipulated to be less powerful than Lisp in all ways.
Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for.
I can then isolate the common characteristics the blub paradox essay ueber-languages and their proponents, and emphasize that both Blub and Flub are time-dependent variables. However skeptical the Blub programmer might be about my claims for the mysterious powers of.
Write your post here.
Paul Graham wrote and essay titled Beating the Averages in which he describes the concept of the Blub agronumericus.com concept described in the essay is that programming languages vary greatly in power and the hypothetical language Blub falls smack dab in the middle of the spectrum.Download