[Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[John Luke Gibson]

> After a few years, the codebase shrank from about 200,000 lines of
> code to about 30,000.  (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but they
> were of these orders of magnitude.)

Dats bootiful (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧

On 6/6/17, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:01:02AM -0400, John Luke Gibson wrote:
>>
>> Both. Most languages today are pretty esoteric, even today. And, the
>> problem isn't so much with the docs, as these languages were designed
>> for people that already new another language equally esoteric, etc.
>>
>> I would think Lisp's resurgence (as well as developing Guile) is a
>> demonstration of GNU trying to break away from that paradigm.
>
> Racket is a rather interesting variant of Scheme.  Aside from having
> good tutorials and documentation, it explicitly allows mixed-language
> development.  In fact, the first line of a Racket module usually
> states which language to use for the rest.  And Racket has tools
> for defining alternative syntax and/or semantics.
>
>>
>> >> [blah blah blah about making programming easier]
>> >
>> >  again, i feel that it is not appropriate to tell people these kinds
>> > of things, as it would be a restriction on what they do and learn.
>> > counter-example: some projects *have* to have a large code-base, by
>> > definition of their goals and scope.
>>
>> I recognize that intuitive isn't always concise, but often it is.
>> I only mean concise when it means intuitive.
>> If a projects roadmap demands a large code base that is
>> highly-esoteric and unintuitive, then that exhibits fault in the
>> underlying language.
>
> Racket's language-definition tool  can be used to shorten notation
> within a large program, and also to define completely new languages.
>
> For example, one of the languages so implemented is Algol 60.
>
> Another is Scribble, a document compiler.  Being based on Racket, it's
> possible to use arbitrary Scheme code in generating your document,
> should you choose to.
>
> -- hendrik
>
>>
>> I'm not suggesting any project change to prioritize this. To the
>> contrary, I think I was quite clear: a project should only dedicate
>> 'extra' resources to this type of endeavor.
>
> There's one case in which a project decided they needed a scripting
> language, and they chose Gambit, a Scheme dialect that compiles to C
> or C++.
>
> After they installed it, they discovered that it was often easier to
> add features in the scripting language than in the original C++ code.
>
> Then they disovered that fixing bugs could often be done by replacing
> buggy C++ code by Scheme code.
>
> After a few years, the codebase shrank from about 200,000 lines of
> code to about 30,000.  (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but they
> were of these orders of magnitude.)
>
> -- hendrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk