Sounds like a failure to understand* the idea behind .Net, which is reuse of libraries written in different languages and through a common intermediate language. There no longer is any reason to have one glorified language (although the idea still lurks). (* Not on your part, contextfree)
I really like this. I read on Joe Duffy's blog that he's working on a language that is a hybrid between C# and Haskell. Maybe it supports the higher-kinded type-system necessary to naturally express these things. I tried to do similar things in ML but in the end the solution wasn't really that appealing.
I don't know about a tongue input device hehe
(A bit distorted audio on my stereo, but cool show otherwise )
Sep 07, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I was quite happy with the coverage - it was already unusual to mix physics and programming this way - very stimulating although beyond me. One of the best parts was the formulation of co- and contravariance rules via sequent notation, dualization and showing a statement sequence as a series of continuations, if I got that right. Definitely a video that expands horizons. And this stuff about ambient monads. I'm not sure that was really covered anywhere, was it?
This is pretty nice but broken. There's too much magic going on. The XML GI syntax (and still more the ns'd GI syntax) does not match up with C# method name syntax. In particular C# method names are far more restricted than XML (namespace) names, they cannot express them. Now adding magic names such as Nodes, Parent, etc. will only compound the problem. What happens if a document actually happens to have an element called Parent or Nodes? So based on a quick review, this approach does not appear sound, as much as I love syntactic sugar.
Now the idea to abstract over attribute and element names is quite sweet. I like the idea and this is also the approach that RDF/XML takes. It just needs to be an explicit abstraction taken by the client not built into the API as a default, thus projecting that assumption onto all existing XML.
As a way to illustrate how dynamic is useful this is not so bad - except it, in my oppinion, teaches an unsound practice for dealing with XML; at least it is not general-purpose. One has to know a priori that such and such name collisions (Parent, Nodes?) will not occur (there goes extensibility) and that cannot express such and such names (XML name syntax, including names in popular XML dialects such as XSLT, where you can have: xslt:value-of).
Many people don't get Dynamic, and what they don't get, they don't want. Some not only don't get it, they see it as a way to circumvent the type system and so hate it. As Anders says - if you don't have the types in the first place, why should you have to have ugly syntax just because the compiler doesn't have the types.
Many others (at least used to) think that C# is just Java rehashed (I still hear this today from some people), in a way it was, but any new language is a rehash of something else. But they're not the same. They have very different generics, different ways of dealing with primitive types vs reference types. Java generics is compiled with type-erasure. Etc., etc., etc. That these differences are constantly glazed over is just annoying.
Now, with LINQ, Lambda expressions, Dynamic, etc., we're getting much more detached. And indeed we see Java copying C# & co. Mutually recursive development, the way it should be (don't really like the word "innovation").
Aug 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Sure, I think we all want that. Radical research.
Aug 31, 2009 at 12:11 PM
- Bing looks great.
- If search results are as great, then great.
- Ads are old, any ad.
- Google should be scared.
- No, you will not convince me that street view sucks or is inappropriate.
- Agree with wisnia about the Bing issue (except in my country it's worse).
- Don't hope Bing totally kicks Google's *, as I rather like competition, which is what made Bing possible in the first place.
Thanks for including the visio diagrams. Will print them and look at the code...
Partial blindness (embarassing moment #15) and partial deafness (your mic audio quality) induced
Love the ding song heh