8 likes
7 Comments
mitchellvolkman9 He’s never lost a game of chance
glenhaag52 Because of the Turing completeness theory, everything one Turing-complete language can do can theoretically be done by another Turing-complete language, but at a different cost. You can do everything in assembler, but no one wants to program in assembler anymore.
almost 2 years ago •
annmarieking8 Language designers want to design the perfect language. They want to be able to say, 'My language is perfect. It can do everything.' But it's just plain impossible to design a perfect language, because there are two ways to look at a language. One way is by looking at what can be done with that language. The other is by looking at how we feel using that language-how we feel while programming.
almost 2 years ago •
nathanielterry37 It is not the responsibility of the language to force good looking code, but the language should make good looking code possible.
almost 2 years ago •
vincefranecki81 People are different. People choose different criteria. But if there is a better way among many alternatives, I want to encourage that way by making it comfortable. So that's what I've tried to do.
almost 2 years ago •
clementstokes7 Often people, especially computer engineers, focus on the machines. But in fact we need to focus on humans, on how humans care about doing programming or operating the application of the machines.
almost 2 years ago •
portertillmaniii27 From the viewpoint of what you can do, therefore, languages do differ - but the differences are limited. For example, Python and Ruby provide almost the same power to the programmer.
almost 2 years ago •
yasmincrist82 I believe consistency and orthogonality are tools of design, not the primary goal in design.
almost 2 years ago •