Linked by RandomGuy on Wed 10th Jun 2009 20:00 UTC
General Development This series is aimed at programming language aficionados. There's a lot of very abstract writing about programming languages and a lot of simple minded "language X sux!" style blog posts by people who know next to nothing about programming. What I feel is sorely missing is a kind of article that deliberately sacrifices the last 10% of precision that make the theoretical articles dry and long winded but still makes a point and discusses the various trade offs involved. This series is meant to fill that void and hopefully start a lot of discussions that are more enlightening than the articles themselves. I will point out some parallels in different parts of computing that I haven't seen mentioned as well as analyze some well known rules of thumb and link to interesting blogs and articles.
Thread beginning with comment 368107
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Blank Stare
by rhyder on Fri 12th Jun 2009 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Blank Stare"
rhyder
Member since:
2005-09-28

Thanks for writing the article, but I agree with others that your approach tends to obfuscate your ideas. The central idea, that it's possible to make a systematic appraisal of the applicability and efficiency of different languages for different types of problem, is interesting. I wonder if you needed to get into the technicalities of Big O, although I confess, I don't fully understand it. A graph showing that the complexity of different code increases for a given language when implementing different algorithm types might have sufficed as an explanation.

A lot will depend on where you intend to take your future articles and on your intended audience. Will this be an explanation of your idea for the general reader or will it be a treatise that specifies a precise algebraic method of programming language analysis?

Although I'm intrigued by what you're proposing, I have to agree with the other commenter when I say that, stylistically, the current article is neither fish nor foul in its approach. Good luck and I'll look out for your future attempts.

Reply Parent Score: 2