> I can see why this is frustrating, especially to someone with no C exposure. But bear in mind that the C underpinnings are part of the reason why these languages are popular in the first place -- like Perl used to be before Python.
I the idea GP is proposing here is that because C is so cumbersome, that is why scripting languages became prominent in the first place. I don't think this many would argue with this.
> In a very real sense, the entire concept of an interpreted language in the modern sense is such an ugly kludge
Here GP is implying that if C were nicer/better, or if some other low level language would have risen to prominence, the scripting langauges would not have been "necessary" or desirable in the same way.
> (much cleaner to "go all in" on the language, LISP machines being the notable predecessor) -- but do be aware of the tradeoff.
Here I assume GP is referring to the work in the 80s on Lisp machines where the idea was to build machines from the ground up more suited to a different paradigm. And thus obviating the need for a cumbersome language such as C.
I personally wonder if GP is familiar the "worse is better" essay?
Wow, I should work on my prose, that comment I wrote was really bad :-(
> I personally wonder if GP is familiar the "worse is better" essay?
I am, it was more or less the idea I was trying to get to. The comment I replied to was along the lines of "I'd like a uniform environment where everything is lisp/smalltalk/pharo/etc". My intention was to point out how that idea isn't as free from compromises as it might seem, which explains the dominant model of high-level scripting languages invoking components written mostly in C/C++. Which is a total eyesore, but also extremely practical.
> I can see why this is frustrating, especially to someone with no C exposure. But bear in mind that the C underpinnings are part of the reason why these languages are popular in the first place -- like Perl used to be before Python.
I the idea GP is proposing here is that because C is so cumbersome, that is why scripting languages became prominent in the first place. I don't think this many would argue with this.
> In a very real sense, the entire concept of an interpreted language in the modern sense is such an ugly kludge
Here GP is implying that if C were nicer/better, or if some other low level language would have risen to prominence, the scripting langauges would not have been "necessary" or desirable in the same way.
> (much cleaner to "go all in" on the language, LISP machines being the notable predecessor) -- but do be aware of the tradeoff.
Here I assume GP is referring to the work in the 80s on Lisp machines where the idea was to build machines from the ground up more suited to a different paradigm. And thus obviating the need for a cumbersome language such as C.
I personally wonder if GP is familiar the "worse is better" essay?