
Interactive scientific computing: Goldilocks languages - 3JPLW
http://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/189377.html
======
agumonkey
> PHP initially implemented its loops by fseek() in the source code.

real #wtf

ps: ltu discussion [http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4990](http://lambda-
the-ultimate.org/node/4990)

~~~
jacquesm
That looks like someone took the 'everything is a file' unix mantra a little
bit too far.

~~~
agumonkey
hyper late bound lazy streamed os cached interpreter pattern

------
zem
i have never gotten a good answer to why lush
[[http://lush.sourceforge.net/](http://lush.sourceforge.net/)] failed to be a
succesful goldilocks language in this space. the only real flaw i saw in it
was the lack of lexical scoping; other than that it looked like a great
solution to the same problems julia is addressing.

------
ende
I love the history here. I know many CS programs offer a programming languages
course, but I really think that should be mandatory.

------
enupten
Julia is an awesome language (and about time too!).

For those of looking for a more lispy tool, checkout the version of Matlisp
I'm writing:
[https://github.com/enupten/matlisp/wiki](https://github.com/enupten/matlisp/wiki)

------
jahewson
It's a real shame that Julia doesn't have a well defined syntax, especially
given that the parser is written in the author's own non-standard lisp
dialect.

~~~
StefanKarpinski
Femtolisp is a very small, fast Scheme implementation – and Scheme is the most
thoroughly standardized dialect of Lisp there is. The fact that Julia's parser
is implemented in flisp also completely irrelevant to the user – you can for
all purposes just consider it a C program that implements a custom parser for
Julia. It's true that there isn't a formal grammar specification of Julia's
grammar, but I'm not sure what that would be especially useful for.

~~~
jahewson
But Femtolisp isn't Scheme, it's a _non-standard_ Scheme with its own custom
built-ins. It's quite impossible to run a Femtolisp program using a Scheme
interpreter without modification.

Formal grammars are enormously useful, I almost always refer to them at some
point when learning a language. It's an important part of being in an
ecosystem larger than oneself. I'd question how a language without a well
defined grammar has well defined semantics as the OP claims.

How many languages have you learned the syntax of by reading the source code
of its parser? How about when the parser is implemented on a language you've
never used?

~~~
StefanKarpinski
Learning a programming language by looking at the formal grammar is like
learning a spoken language just by reading a grammar textbook. No one actually
does that. Learning a language by reading the parser is even more ridiculous.
That's like learning a spoken language by dissecting the brain of a native
speaker. The way people actually learn languages – both programming and
natural – is by seeing examples, reading explanations, and by trying things
out.

