From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2011-04-04T04:03:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Lambda Shambda

--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:29:27PM +0900, Mike Stephens wrote:
> Josh Cheek wrote in post #990579:
> > is this really something you'd want to do for anything other than an
> > exercise?
>=20
> Excel is somewhat incidental to this discussion. It is not like
> functional languages people normally think of. What I was saying is it
> is interesting to think of new algorithms/patterns.
>=20
> However, since you ask: Excel is by far the World's most widely used
> programming language. We recently had someone on this channel asking how
> to build an application to compare performance of schools. Something
> like Rails is a huge jump for a newby. Leveraging Excel knowledge could
> make this kind of thing so much more accessible.

Correction: it is (probably) the world's most widely macro system.

I'm also not sure that Excel would be any more accessible to the "newbie"
than Rails.  The only reason many people find it "easier" is that they
have already invested the time to learn to use its most basic
capabilities, whereas they have not done so with Ruby and/or Rails.


>=20
> But the other point is why does everybody make languages so difficult
> these days? I have a degree in Physics but couldn't face trying to
> unravel F# or Haskell. Don't tell me trying to fathom out complex
> recursive functions is a good way to spend your day.

They aren't all "so difficult".  They just reward a different approach to
automation than Excel -- an approach that does not overconsume resources
so much, that scales better, that allows for easier composition of
complex algorithms from simple algorithms, and that supports greater
productivity for the expert.


>=20
> Of course, you have to encourage people to invent Lambda Calculus and
> then turn it into a computing language but such university thesis ideas
> shouldn't be seen as the model for real world products.

Actually, the consequences of that kind of thinking results in
programming languages that allow us to leverage our capabilities much
more efficiently (and I'm not just talking about clock cycles, here), so
that we can build upon past advances to produce more substantial and
amazing advances in the future.  Giving up on the cutting edge just
because you don't understand it yet only limits you.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2YwY4ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKV3LgCg4vh9KG/HzDRjJhqVUEP175Oo
Uq8Anj5Sc8+A5IIuNjtrErZECbskp3l6
=296v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI--