Is the Sussman...

...coming up with a new programming language?
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/propagators/
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-To-Compute
"I'm at the Strange Loop conference and Gerald Sussman said that all languages are obsolete but called Haskell "the most advanced obsolete language he knows". That's kind of a compliment I guess." - deech

I've repeatedly said here that all existing languages are shit including Haskell, yet Haskell is slightly less shit than the vast majority. Turns out, Sussman largely agrees with me.

The Sussman gave a talk last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2ukPb9tn7Y&t=61m
Too bad it was about free software bullshit and nothing too technical. At least we know he's healthy and kicking ass.
Long live the Sussman!

https://github.com/gjs?tab=activity
He did some commits on Nov 05.

The problem with abstraction is that you lose performance.
Unless someone finds a way to get abstraction without losing performance, it's all shit.

He's coming up with a new paradigm.

"Scheme-Propagators is the most advanced programming language built from the ground up to support the propagator-oriented paradigm."

- http://www.mindmachineproject.org/proj/prop/

PLAY WITH THE PROPAGATOR, faggots

http://www.mindmachineproject.org/proj/prop/propagator.tar

>>7

made by a Jew

Probably Python or PHP quality.

It incorporates explicit structure to support the integration of redundant pieces and subsystems that solve problems in several different ways.

What the bloody bollocks!? Intentionally creating bloat?

Fortunately it seems far less scary if you read the rest of it. Just like SICP, this is pure mental masturbation. All he did was reinvented lazy evaluation and made it a little more explicit.

>>9
Do you agree with >>5-san?

Propagate my anus

>>11
Propagate your dubs

>>9
FIFTEEEN YEARS ON DA KERNEL WILL DO DAT TO YA

MENTAL MASTURBATIONS, WHERE ARE YOU NOW?!

Gerald Sussman [...] called Haskell "the most advanced [...] language he knows"

Will you niggers finally shut up? Lisp and Haskell are not direct opposites to each other.

Will the "shut up haskell faggot you've never used lisp" niggers finally shut up?
Will the "lisp faggots are too dumb to understand haskell" niggers finally shut the fuck up?

microsoft excel already does this

*
"GRUNNUR"
;

microsoft excel does Dallas

>>14
But lisp faggots really are too dumb to understand Haskell.

http://ro-che.info/ccc/17

>>18
you're new here, go back to /g/ nigger

>>18
But Haskell faggots really are too dumb to understand agda.

>>20
Because Agda is not a real language.

>>18

http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-languages-are-static-languages/

And this is precisely what is wrong with dynamically typed languages: rather than affording the freedom to ignore types, they instead impose the bondage of restricting attention to a single type!

False

Even if in a particular situation we are absolutely certain that a particular value is, say, an integer

Premature optimization

you are depriving yourself of the ability to state and enforce the invariant that the value at a particular program point must be an integer.

That is a trivial invariant. Practical invariants depend upon values and relationships, which cannot be enforced with types unless there are dependant types.

For another, you are imposing a serious bit of run-time overhead

False. Recursive type inference.

Either you give up on modular development, and rely on whole program analysis ...

It's trivial.

or you introduce a static type system precisely for the purpose of recording inter-modular dependencies

Not needed. This can easily be infered by the machine.

The whole-program approach does not scale,

Yes it does.

>>19
Stop it.

>>22
You know, a true statement doesn't literally become false just because you write "False".

This optimization is not always premature, yet the unityped languages deprive us of it in all cases. The multityped languages, if they're decent, offer the escape hatch of parametric polymorphism for cases when it is indeed a premature optimization. Again, multityped languages give more freedom.

If it is a trivial invariant, then unityped languages are shit for not letting us express even such a trivial invariant. Moreover, despite the triviality of that invariant, it actually accounts for the majority of errors during develompent. Not the most important and hard to locate errors, but at least the majority of errors. Which is already a lot of help, especially when refactoring code or rapidly prototyping.

If "recursive type inference" really worked, the overhead in "dynamic languages" wouldn't be there. Run some benchmarks, will you?

You know, a non-trivial problem doesn't just become trivial because once write "It's trivial".

Etc etc, your whole post is a bunch of baseless assertions while Harper always gives clear and argumented opinions. You're full of shit.

You know, a true statement doesn't literally become false just because you write "False".

And a statement is not true just because you say it is true.

This optimization is not always premature

You or someone else can always extend a program to a point where the type constraint must be undone.

if they're decent, offer the escape hatch of parametric polymorphism

So a type system is good if it's easy to pretend you don't have it in the first place.

If it is a trivial invariant, then unityped languages are shit for not letting us express even such a trivial invariant.

Correct types don't get you much unless you have dependent types. It's not worth it. Use a better system to test invariants like compiler aware assertions.

Moreover, despite the triviality of that invariant, it actually accounts for the majority of errors during develompent.

You don't need to declare static types to detect type errors. Recursive type inference is sufficient for detecting type errors at compile time. You can do this in dynamically typed languages.

If "recursive type inference" really worked, the overhead in "dynamic languages" wouldn't be there. Run some benchmarks, will you?

You mean "if recursive type inference was really implemented for mainstream compiler of shit dynamic language I'm thinking of, then it would be faster". If you want an example, see sbcl. Your reasoning is also a fallacy. Just because an implementation does not yet realize the idea, does not mean the idea is not possible to implement.

You know, a non-trivial problem doesn't just become trivial because once write "It's trivial".

And a problem is not non-trivial just because you say it is non-trivial.

Etc etc, your whole post is a bunch of baseless assertions while Harper always gives clear and argumented opinions. You're full of shit.

I provided counter examples to Harper's supporting points. That is all. Get what you want out of that, or nothing at all. It's up to you.

lol look at these nerds fighting
us C programming alpha males get pussy while you nerdo laspers and huskels get nigger or kike dick

Mercury is better than both.

>>25

And a statement is not true just because you say it is true.

You need to read PFPL and that post by Harper. Then TAPL. And only then can you come back and continue this conversation. Until then, I won't argue with your ignorance. Au revoir!

Au revoir

Fucking frenchy!

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44215/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2009-002.pdf

The Art of the Propagator

A reference to "The Art Of The Interpreter" (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheArtOfTheInterpreter).
He's at it again! A new revolutionary language? Yes, please!

In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?" asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe," Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?" asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play," Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

>>27
No, Clean.

>>32
Old, un-maintained and has no community.

>>33
You talking about Mercury? Hell, they both are.

>>34

Mercury 14.01.1 released
Release Information is available here.
08 September 2014

TSK.

>>35
Its reddit has only 6 topics => it has no community.

>>36
How about checking the mailing lists then.

>>37
You'll get extra credit if you do.

>>38
But I did, I would not say that if I had not.

>>39
So what are the results?