The funniest thing ever


#1

this was so dang funny i had to share it

C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.

 -- off smalltalk.org

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html

i’m still laughing…

-a


#2

On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

i’m still laughing…

That’s really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I think
the article is well worth reading. Some of the other quotes appearing
there were almost a good as the one you picked. This one really got
my attention:

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it

harder, but
when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

   -- Bjarne Stroustrup

It’s hard to believe that comes from Bjarne Stroustrup.

Regards, Morton


#3

Hi –

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

i’m still laughing…

If it walks like an octopus…

:slight_smile:

David


#4

On 10.02.2007 07:13, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

this was so dang funny i had to share it

C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.

-- off smalltalk.org

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html

Ara, thank you for sharing this - not only because of the funny quotes
but also because of the lot of good brainfood!

Kind regards

robert


#5

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Morton G. wrote:

On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/
scalable_computer_programming_languages.html

That’s really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I
think the article is well worth reading.

I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is
evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations…
typical for academia.

If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache? are
there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice
framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the
author likes it so much. I’ve never used OCAML)

The pragmatic side of me says I don’t have time to look at a language
that can’t get the job done. (even if you add “yet” to that).

More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the
programmer than the language. I’ve seen scalable and brittle code
in almost all of those languages.

David M.
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
removed_email_address@domain.invalid

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF0KPiUy30ODPkzl0RAvYrAKCBSqrYh0YIkZLYPCa00NOEDhh5OgCfUeZ0
PFAeCdEAfhX4orS5bCAstzk=
=ZLo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


#6

Richard C. wrote:

framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the

Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable at
working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn.

Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it though.

Well … the folks at INRIA have done some interesting things with it in
their “Coq” proof assistant, including some proofs of program
correctness. I’ve installed Coq on my machine and plan to play around a
bit with that. If you can prove an OCaml program correct more easily
than you can prove a Ruby program correct for practical sized
programs
, I’d say it’s worth looking at.


M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC§
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.


#7

On 2/12/07, David M. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

author likes it so much. I’ve never used OCAML)
OCaml gets a lot of attention mostly as a source of ideas for
language designers, who are designing other languages, not
OCaml.

It has some fantastic features at the language
design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
to speak of. The most sophisticated thing you can do with the
standard distro is read a file.

It does have a way of binding to C code. If it exists in C, you can
use it and that’s its hand-wavey excuse for not having any APIs.

The pragmatic side of me says I don’t have time to look at a language
that can’t get the job done. (even if you add “yet” to that).

If anything is going to happen with OCaml, it will happen at the
heavy-duty OSS level (like kernel writers). Its getting a lot of
attention from
the traditionally C-only crew.

Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable
at
working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn.

Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it
though.


#8

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:

If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache? are

His only point is that there is correlation between scalability and
applicability of a language.

The rest is evaluation of scalability of different languages.

Does the lack of a mod_ocaml make it less sacalable? No. It makes it more
applicable. Which isn’t the same.

especially since mod_ocaml is right here

http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi?contrib=281

along with smtp, pop, net, cgi, etc

http://ocamlnet.sourceforge.net/manual-2.2/

fyi and very OT.

-a


#9

On 2/12/07, David M. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice
framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the
author likes it so much. I’ve never used OCAML)

The pragmatic side of me says I don’t have time to look at a language
that can’t get the job done. (even if you add “yet” to that).

More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the
programmer than the language. I’ve seen scalable and brittle code
in almost all of those languages.

His only point is that there is correlation between scalability and
applicability of a language.

The rest is evaluation of scalability of different languages.

Does the lack of a mod_ocaml make it less sacalable? No. It makes it
more
applicable. Which isn’t the same.

Does the hampered (is that a word?) scalability of C++ make it less
applicable? IMHO, it does.

The scalability of a language isn’t dependent on the programmer. The
scalability of a language is the inverse of how much the language gets
in
the way of writing scalable code (I think it’s more fitting than “how
much
the language helps the programmers write scalable code”, though that can
be
used too if we talk paths of least resistance).

Aur S.

Just my NIS.05


#10

On 2/13/07, Clifford H. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Richard C. wrote:

It has some fantastic features at the language
design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
to speak of.

That’s funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base
language package contains nearly nothing, that’s an advantage.

Ruby taught me that that is SO WRONG.

I install a compiler/interpreter and I want to DEVELOP THINGS.

Having a distribution with nearly nothing is OK, but the standard should
be
as full of functionality as possible. That also establishes standards
and
saves hackers who want to hack on a project in the language from the
uncomfortable experience of having to install a googol libraries.

Aur S.


#11

Maybe some projects such as http://www.haxe.org or
http://www.ocsigen.org should have been mentioned in the article.


#12

Sorry if I am wrong, but did those projects exist in 2001?


#13

Richard C. wrote:

It has some fantastic features at the language
design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
to speak of.

That’s funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base
language package contains nearly nothing, that’s an advantage.

Clifford H…


#14

SonOfLilit wrote:
Sorry if I am wrong, but did those projects exist in 2001?

The web site/article has been updated just recently, i. e. “Last updated
November 17, 2006”.


#15

On 2/13/07, Clifford H. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Richard C. wrote:

It has some fantastic features at the language
design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
to speak of.

That’s funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages.

I didn’t get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies
if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling
and chasing resources and didn’t find anything, and no real links from
the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development
basically meant binding to C libraries.

Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you
think
this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library
ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate
attention.

If the base
language package contains nearly nothing, that’s an advantage.

Agreed. But if I didn’t make it clear, my main concern was the
availability
of libraries for common development tasks, like database development,
network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc.

Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml is interesting.


#16

On 2/13/07, Richard C. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think
this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library
ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate
attention.

http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.cgi

Share and enjoy :slight_smile:

m.


#17

On 2/13/07, Richard C. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

I didn’t get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies

if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling
and chasing resources and didn’t find anything, and no real links from
the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development
basically meant binding to C libraries.

Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml?

I think enough people have shown interest in this thread to reply on
list
(there is a delete button too;)
Caml has a Hump,right;) http://caml.inria.fr//cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi
more interesting stuff can be found here:

http://caml.inria.fr/resources/index.en.html

HTH
Robert


#18

On 2/10/07, removed_email_address@domain.invalid removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_languages.html

my favourite quote from that article was lispnik Martin Rodgers’s

Will write code that writes code that writes code for food.

martin


#19

On 2/13/07, Richard C. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling

language package contains nearly nothing, that’s an advantage.

Agreed. But if I didn’t make it clear, my main concern was the availability
of libraries for common development tasks, like database development,
network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc.

Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml is interesting.

And you have to love the Ruby community where an off-topic humor
thread starts espousing the wonders of the ocaml language. I remember
a similar thing happening on a previous thread comparing Ruby and
Python. It, too, ended up discussing how the wonders of ocaml.

TwP


#20

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:

Ruby taught me that that is SO WRONG.

I install a compiler/interpreter and I want to DEVELOP THINGS.

Having a distribution with nearly nothing is OK, but the standard should be
as full of functionality as possible. That also establishes standards and
saves hackers who want to hack on a project in the language from the
uncomfortable experience of having to install a googol libraries.

i don’t think that’s slowed rails down too much… it’s a big install
too…

we can thank rubygems for that!

-a