1. 6
  1. 1

    From the paper: “Behind every interesting programming language is an interesting model of computation.”

    True?

    1. 3

      It’s a nice line. I think it might be a bit too strong and oversimplifying, but then quotable lines often are. Too strong because it leaves no room for interestingness purely on the language side, i.e. a language that is a particularly nice interface to an otherwise not too remarkable model of computation. But I can agree with the claim in the direction they mean it for this paper: a language that is a front-end to an interesting model of computation is interesting for that reason, and APL (and descendents) is such a language.

      1. 1

        I’m curious if anyone can suggest an example of a language which is “interesting purely on the language side.” Off the top of my head I’m coming up blank, but I’m very open to suggestion! I can think of languages which are interesting on the language side (e.g., قلب), but they still sit on top of a reasonable computational model.

        1. 1

          True, it’s probably a necessary condition that the model of computation is at least reasonable. But I’m thinking of languages that aren’t particularly innovative from a computation-model perspective. For example I think D is an interesting language, but its model of computation is pretty conventional. What it hopes to bring to the table is a nicer language for writing that model than, say, C++ is, but not a radically new model.

          1. 1

            Well, yes, I agree. Note that I don’t think the authors of the paper are claiming that the “interesting” model of computation must be new, because theirs isn’t!