Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!think!bloom-beacon!apple!voder!pyramid!cbmvax!snark!eric From: eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages Message-ID: Date: 11 Jan 89 04:50:32 GMT References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com> <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Organization: John Dillinger Died For You Society Lines: 55 (begin half-smiley mode... In <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, rjh@cs.purdue.edu (Bob Hathaway) writes: > Lets please stop using the term B&D languages, this is a bad > analogy and a heavily biased opinion. I've promulgated the usage you're objecting to because I think it's a *good* analogy, at least good enough for semi-serious rhetorical purposes. I would be willing to switch to alternate terminology. If you prefer political obscenity to sexual reference, this libertarian would be quite happy to substitute `totalitarian language' for 'bondage & discipline language' in communicating with you. > Maybe I can't adequately > express classes or model abstractions in expression-based > language X and feel similarly constrained. Quite possibly. You're thinking of things like Backus's pure-functional language aren't you? Yes, that has the B&D nature. So does Prolog. Don't for a minute think I reserve my spleen for *obvious* examples of the breed... > This shows the > term 'B&D' can be applied from almost any paradigm or style > of programming to any other and is semantically worthless. I disagree. Perhaps you missed my original definition. To attain the B&D nature, a language must be a) wedded to some *one* 'high-level' programming philosophy known to be inadequate for general-purpose programming, and b) lack the generality or the low-level 'escape' constructs that would permit other styles of system organization. Thus, for example, APL is less hard-core B&D than, say, Prolog -- because it has a 'goto' construct that permits alternatives to the preferred applicative style (this observation should *not* be construed as a defense of goto-intensive spaghetti-coding!). > Lets be more precise and use unambiguous terms such as > strongly, weakly, or dynamically typed languages so we don't have > to type 'k' so often. ** So, you think these terms are unambiguous, do you? I think I'll let someone else tackle *that* grand illusion! Hey, look, B&D languages have their uses. For some people. I'd be the last to try and legislate morality in the hack-room. What goes on between a consenting programmer and his or her machine is strictly their business as long as no third party is harmed. I just get annoyed when these people start evangelizing for their kinks as though they'd found the Final Solution to the Programming Problem... ...end half-smiley mode) -- Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews) Email: eric@snark.uu.net CompuServe: [72037,2306] Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718