I read this article while re-attempting learning Perl, on the newer
version 6, now called Raku.
https://thenewstack.io/larry-walls-quest-100-year-programming-language/
I think it shares some things in common with the Forever computer:

"At this point, Joe Armstrong imagined a world 300 years into the
future, “When all these programmers have to read legacy Erlang and
legacy Perl… It’ll be like the ancient hieroglyphics. Nobody would
dare change it because it all works."
Also: http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html

This book is really well-written: https://greenteapress.com/wp/think-perl-6/
It explains that all programming languages are formal, but that PERL
was written as more of a natural language. Raku builds on that with
cleaner code/instructions. Perhaps it's why it's appealing- my reading
comprehension improved in my mid-20s, and having a basic math
background might be easier to learn Raku (at least as an introductory
language) than other programming languages. It also has a detailed
explanation of common errors based on input. In my late 30s, it's
difficult to learn programming by having to learn a new equation AND
the syntax at the same time (in the more mathematically pure language
like lamda, as I assume), if I merely need to use an operator to
represent the function.

While formal languages have strict syntax rules that govern the
structure of statements (p.11, Ch. 1.6), in Perl, the saying is
"There's more than one way to do it"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl#Overview). Thus, as with natural
languages, there is sometimes more than one way to structure a
sentence that conveys more or less the same thing. Perhaps an
assumption that everything must have rigidity drives some to other
languages. In any case, I think Raku has an opportunity to become an
emerging language due to its flexibility and breadth of features.
Having a language be supported for decades is important as well. I
downloaded Rakudo and it has great capabilities: https://rakudo.org/

It mentions commonly supported editors, such Emacs/vim, and dedicated
Raku ones, such as Comma https://commaide.com/faq

Thoughts?

-- 
Giovanni Lostumbo
708-303-8175

I'm not too familiar with Pearl/Raku, I tried to get
Raku(https://www.raku.org) up and running on the Pinebook(arm) a weeks
back and I just couldn't figure it out, so I'm a bit weary of what
that might mean in term of resilience, but it's nice that the
community is thinking about these issues.

At a glance, I'd say that the language looks quite convoluted and
mixes various paradigms, which makes me wonder if maybe languages that
focus on doing one thing well might not walk right over Pearl. But
it's already 50 years old now, so it only has to remain compatible for
50 years to reach a 100, so I'm quite sure there will still be
versions around then if it captures the attention of enough people :)

If I had to put my money on a language that will still be usable, used
and compatible in 50 years, it'd similar to Paul's article's point and
be on forth, scheme or lisp. They have so little syntax and so many
flavors and implementations, they are used in such a wildly varied
contexts that a catalyst would have to occur for the languages to
completely vanish. These languags were less "designed" and more found,
which is giving them an edge considering that they might be
rediscovered would they entirely vanish.

On 3/14/23, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostumbo@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read this article while re-attempting learning Perl, on the newer
> version 6, now called Raku.
> https://thenewstack.io/larry-walls-quest-100-year-programming-language/
> I think it shares some things in common with the Forever computer:
>
> "At this point, Joe Armstrong imagined a world 300 years into the
> future, “When all these programmers have to read legacy Erlang and
> legacy Perl… It’ll be like the ancient hieroglyphics. Nobody would
> dare change it because it all works."
> Also: http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html
>
> This book is really well-written:
> https://greenteapress.com/wp/think-perl-6/
> It explains that all programming languages are formal, but that PERL
> was written as more of a natural language. Raku builds on that with
> cleaner code/instructions. Perhaps it's why it's appealing- my reading
> comprehension improved in my mid-20s, and having a basic math
> background might be easier to learn Raku (at least as an introductory
> language) than other programming languages. It also has a detailed
> explanation of common errors based on input. In my late 30s, it's
> difficult to learn programming by having to learn a new equation AND
> the syntax at the same time (in the more mathematically pure language
> like lamda, as I assume), if I merely need to use an operator to
> represent the function.
>
> While formal languages have strict syntax rules that govern the
> structure of statements (p.11, Ch. 1.6), in Perl, the saying is
> "There's more than one way to do it"
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl#Overview). Thus, as with natural
> languages, there is sometimes more than one way to structure a
> sentence that conveys more or less the same thing. Perhaps an
> assumption that everything must have rigidity drives some to other
> languages. In any case, I think Raku has an opportunity to become an
> emerging language due to its flexibility and breadth of features.
> Having a language be supported for decades is important as well. I
> downloaded Rakudo and it has great capabilities: https://rakudo.org/
>
> It mentions commonly supported editors, such Emacs/vim, and dedicated
> Raku ones, such as Comma https://commaide.com/faq
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Giovanni Lostumbo
> 708-303-8175
>

RE: Forever Language

I think folks kind of sleep on the original Hypertalk.  Not only did
it have a more naturalistic 'This is the list of things I want to
happen' kind of approach, but it kept colloquialisms and variations of
saying the same thing (at least in English) as part of the syntax.  It
also referenced directly the word 'me' and 'it', so that shorthand "I
already know what you're talking about' is imbedded into the syntax.
For instance, "Add Dude and Chick and divide it by 3."

I think if we're going to talk naturalistic languages and interpreters
while absolutely ignoring speed because speed can be taken care of
these days, then I think Hypertalk in it's original incarnation is
worth a look. Granted, it's use was very much tied to it's context.
The use of 'me' was basically the object being interacted with could
use the shortcut of 'me' instead of directly referencing it...i.e.
"Add me to the sum of 3 plus 5" vs. "add the value of button 4 of this
card to the sum of 3 plus 5".  Either way, it's pretty direct.

It also included multiple ways of interpreting the syntax, sort of
taking into account how people talk in general. So like..."Add 3 and 5
and put it in button 2" would work the same as "set the value of
button 2 to 3 plus 5", etc.

I think it's useful to have more fluent interpretations of a
programming language because everyone has various ways they feel
comfortable expressing ideas even though the core idea itself is the
same...if a language is to be accessible and timeless, it should, in
my opinion, take into account the flexibility of the people themselves
and the various ways they express their thoughts and ideas.  Obviously
there's limits to this, but maybe this can be an application for AI to
reinterpret where possible the syntax of the user not 'quite' matching
up to the ridged rules.

For instance, the parser expects something like, "add 5 plus 2 and
store it in variable SUM" and the user writes something like, "Take
the 5 and the 2, add them together and put it into a value I'm gonna
call SUM".

I think it's worth noting that programming doesn't have to be
collaborative with other folks and that often to get the most use out
of it on a personal level, it's a conversation with one's self.  If
that is the main goal, to make a language that creates functionality
from thinking 'aloud' to a computer to make it solve problems without
strict syntax, then this may be a direction to go.  I think there's
definitely room and use for collaboration and strict syntax, but for
personal use, this is not so important and therefore is maybe an
avenue of exploration.

- Jeremy

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:09 PM Devine Lu Linvega <aliceffekt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not too familiar with Pearl/Raku, I tried to get
> Raku(https://www.raku.org) up and running on the Pinebook(arm) a weeks
> back and I just couldn't figure it out, so I'm a bit weary of what
> that might mean in term of resilience, but it's nice that the
> community is thinking about these issues.
>
> At a glance, I'd say that the language looks quite convoluted and
> mixes various paradigms, which makes me wonder if maybe languages that
> focus on doing one thing well might not walk right over Pearl. But
> it's already 50 years old now, so it only has to remain compatible for
> 50 years to reach a 100, so I'm quite sure there will still be
> versions around then if it captures the attention of enough people :)
>
> If I had to put my money on a language that will still be usable, used
> and compatible in 50 years, it'd similar to Paul's article's point and
> be on forth, scheme or lisp. They have so little syntax and so many
> flavors and implementations, they are used in such a wildly varied
> contexts that a catalyst would have to occur for the languages to
> completely vanish. These languags were less "designed" and more found,
> which is giving them an edge considering that they might be
> rediscovered would they entirely vanish.
>
> On 3/14/23, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostumbo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I read this article while re-attempting learning Perl, on the newer
> > version 6, now called Raku.
> > https://thenewstack.io/larry-walls-quest-100-year-programming-language/
> > I think it shares some things in common with the Forever computer:
> >
> > "At this point, Joe Armstrong imagined a world 300 years into the
> > future, “When all these programmers have to read legacy Erlang and
> > legacy Perl… It’ll be like the ancient hieroglyphics. Nobody would
> > dare change it because it all works."
> > Also: http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html
> >
> > This book is really well-written:
> > https://greenteapress.com/wp/think-perl-6/
> > It explains that all programming languages are formal, but that PERL
> > was written as more of a natural language. Raku builds on that with
> > cleaner code/instructions. Perhaps it's why it's appealing- my reading
> > comprehension improved in my mid-20s, and having a basic math
> > background might be easier to learn Raku (at least as an introductory
> > language) than other programming languages. It also has a detailed
> > explanation of common errors based on input. In my late 30s, it's
> > difficult to learn programming by having to learn a new equation AND
> > the syntax at the same time (in the more mathematically pure language
> > like lamda, as I assume), if I merely need to use an operator to
> > represent the function.
> >
> > While formal languages have strict syntax rules that govern the
> > structure of statements (p.11, Ch. 1.6), in Perl, the saying is
> > "There's more than one way to do it"
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl#Overview). Thus, as with natural
> > languages, there is sometimes more than one way to structure a
> > sentence that conveys more or less the same thing. Perhaps an
> > assumption that everything must have rigidity drives some to other
> > languages. In any case, I think Raku has an opportunity to become an
> > emerging language due to its flexibility and breadth of features.
> > Having a language be supported for decades is important as well. I
> > downloaded Rakudo and it has great capabilities: https://rakudo.org/
> >
> > It mentions commonly supported editors, such Emacs/vim, and dedicated
> > Raku ones, such as Comma https://commaide.com/faq
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Giovanni Lostumbo
> > 708-303-8175
> >