January/February 2018 issue of acmqueue

The January/February issue of acmqueue is out now

Kode Vicious


  Download PDF version of this article PDF

ITEM not available


Originally published in Queue vol. 11, no. 1
see this item in the ACM Digital Library


Follow Kode Vicious on Twitter
and Facebook

Have a question for Kode Vicious? E-mail him at [email protected]. If your question appears in his column, we'll send you a rare piece of authentic Queue memorabilia. We edit e-mails for style, length, and clarity.


Jez Humble - Continuous Delivery Sounds Great, but Will It Work Here?
It's not magic, it just requires continuous, daily improvement at all levels.

Nicole Forsgren, Mik Kersten - DevOps Metrics
Your biggest mistake might be collecting the wrong data.

Alvaro Videla - Metaphors We Compute By
Code is a story that explains how to solve a particular problem.

Ivar Jacobson, Ian Spence, Pan-Wei Ng - Is There a Single Method for the Internet of Things?
Essence can keep software development for the IoT from becoming unwieldy.


(newest first)

Greg Jaxon | Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:53:41 UTC

"Programs that were written in a more reasonable style and without ridiculous schedules imposed from above maintain their freshness longer."

Pre-1995 code was developed by cadres of "early adopters" of Comp. Sci.; It tends to be more "reasoned" (calling that "style" seems slanderous). Code production methodologies with a few exceptions (e.g. NASA & military) were certainly more relaxed - there were few "mass market deliverables". A lot of code from that era has aged remarkably well, and rumors of its expiration date are exaggerated. Rather than a "Best By" date, I suggest a pedigree mark, e.g., "GNU Binutils - perfect since 1981".

Beau Webber | Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:44:52 UTC

The real power of the Apl symbols lies in the parsing - not not the computer parsing, but what goes on in one's head. Because there is one symbol per concept, there is no problem in building a complex expression in ones head, and then mentally executing it. A whole level of parsing needed with other languages is just not present. And no, Apl is not dead, the core is unchanged over decades, but it has evolves into a powerful multi-tasking Object Oriented platform with hooks to .net, regular expression parsers, has GUI creation facilities, and talks to FPGAs. I am currently re-visiting and extending its capabilities to be compiled to reside in multi-processor systems and soft processors on FPGAs. http://www.microapl.co.uk/APL/ http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/379199.379200 http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10011790 http://www.element14.com/community/groups/fpga-group/blog/2012/04/28/fpga-modular-firmware-skeleton-for-multiple-instruments--morph-ic-ii-youtube-videos http://www.lab-tools.com/software/Compiling_Apl_for_MultiProcessors/

Tim | Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:10:00 UTC

To be fair, the previous behaviour of / in Python was problematic as well, since two different operations (integer and real division) were represented by the same operator. This is a real problem in a language that encourages you to write polymorphic "duck-typed" code where you don't convert the type of your arguments: you would usually expect 2 / 3 == 2.0 / 3.

Leave this field empty

Post a Comment:

© 2018 ACM, Inc. All Rights Reserved.