🚀 go-pugleaf

(begin half-smiley mode...

In <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, rjh@cs.purdue.edu (Bob Hathaway) writes:
> Lets please stop using the term B&D languages, this is a bad
> analogy and a heavily biased opinion.

I've promulgated the usage you're objecting to because I think it's a *good*
analogy, at least good enough for semi-serious rhetorical purposes. I would be
willing to switch to alternate terminology. If you prefer political obscenity
to sexual reference, this libertarian would be quite happy to substitute
`totalitarian language' for 'bondage & discipline language' in communicating
with you.

>                                       Maybe I can't adequately 
> express classes or model abstractions in expression-based 
> language X and feel similarly constrained.

Quite possibly. You're thinking of things like Backus's pure-functional
language aren't you? Yes, that has the B&D nature. So does Prolog. Don't
for a minute think I reserve my spleen for *obvious* examples of the breed...

>                                            This shows the
> term 'B&D' can be applied from almost any paradigm or style 
> of programming to any other and is semantically worthless.

I disagree. Perhaps you missed my original definition. To attain the B&D
nature, a language must be a) wedded to some *one* 'high-level' programming
philosophy known to be inadequate for general-purpose programming, and b) lack 
the generality or the low-level 'escape' constructs that would permit other
styles of system organization.

Thus, for example, APL is less hard-core B&D than, say, Prolog -- because it
has a 'goto' construct that permits alternatives to the preferred applicative
style (this observation should *not* be construed as a defense of
goto-intensive spaghetti-coding!).

> Lets be more precise and use unambiguous terms such as
> strongly, weakly, or dynamically typed languages so we don't have
> to type 'k' so often.

*<chortle>* So, you think these terms are unambiguous, do you? I think
I'll let someone else tackle *that* grand illusion!

Hey, look, B&D languages have their uses. For some people. I'd be the last to
try and legislate morality in the hack-room. What goes on between a consenting
programmer and his or her machine is strictly their business as long as no
third party is harmed. I just get annoyed when these people start evangelizing
for their kinks as though they'd found the Final Solution to the Programming
Problem...

...end half-smiley mode)
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond                     (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
      Email: eric@snark.uu.net                       CompuServe: [72037,2306]
      Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355      Phone: (215)-296-5718