Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Jul 2013 14:06 UTC
General Development "There is a reason I use 'old' languages like J or Lush. It's not a retro affectation; I save that for my suits. These languages are designed better than modern ones. There is some survivor bias here; nobody slings PL/1 or Cobol willingly, but modern language and package designers don't seem to learn much from the masters. Modern code monkeys don't even recognize mastery; mastery is measured in dollars or number of users, which is a poor substitute for distinguishing between what is good and what is dumb. Lady Gaga made more money than Beethoven, but, like, so what?" This isn't just a thing among programmers. The entire industry is obsessed with user numbers, number of applications, and other crap that is meaningless when you consider programming to be art. When I post a new item about some small hobby operating system, the comments will be filled with negativity because it's no Windows or iOS, whereas only ten years ago, we'd have lively discussions about the implementation details. And then people wonder why that scene has died out.
Thread beginning with comment 568189
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Obligatory: May the FORTH go with you
by shotsman on Sun 28th Jul 2013 18:07 UTC in reply to "Forgotten past"
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

A truly powerful language who's syntax is hardly understood by anyone these days.

Sigh.

On a slighty different tack...

012701
000065
012702
000001
060102

And the answer is?

Reply Parent Score: 3

Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

Something octal?
Like a 36bits computer?

Reply Parent Score: 3

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I haven't touched a PDP-11 in 25 years but...

012701 000065 MOV #65,R1
012702 000001 MOV #1,R2
060102 ADD R1,R2

54?

Reply Parent Score: 6

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Yep.
Move '5' to R1
Add 1 to R1 store the result in R2

The answer is '6'

Reply Parent Score: 3