• Bill Baxter (8/8) Apr 05 2008 Has anyone heard of this?:
• Edward Diener (10/20) Apr 05 2008 Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if like...
• Bruce Adams (11/28) Apr 06 2008 To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain assumption...
• Edward Diener (15/48) Apr 06 2008 If the word "process" meant exactly one thing in computer programming,
• Bruce Adams (16/41) Apr 06 2008 Intrigued by this concept I googled and found:
• Jim Fox (5/25) May 18 2014 Ed, the "humanistic" programmer. It fits.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Has anyone heard of this?:

Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf

I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on 
another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance. 
But I don't really know Erlang. :-)

May be interesting food for thought.

--bb

Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
 
 Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
 
 I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on 
 another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance. 
 But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
 
 May be interesting food for thought.

Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if like 
Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should mean whatever they 
determine them to mean, is a mystery to me.

Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP versus 
"processes", no definition of the latter term was even given ! Because 
of that I gave it a D- and quit.

What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to teach 
computer programmers how to write discursive essays. Those who appear to 
be the most talented often have no clue.

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:47:19 +0100, Edward Diener  
<eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
  Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
  I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on  
 another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance.  
 But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
  May be interesting food for thought.

 Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if like  
 Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should mean whatever they  
 determine them to mean, is a mystery to me.

 Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP versus  
 "processes", no definition of the latter term was even given ! Because  
 of that I gave it a D- and quit.

 What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to teach  
 computer programmers how to write discursive essays. Those who appear to  
 be the most talented often have no clue.

To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain assumptions  
about your
readers background knowledge. You can't introduce every term every time.
For academic papers the target audience is most certainly not the D  
newsgroup.
The range of abilities and backgrounds here is too vast to cover without  
several
weighty tomes many of which would be boring to some. GIYF (Google is your  
friend).

Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> writes:

Bruce Adams wrote:
 On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:47:19 +0100, Edward Diener 
 <eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> wrote:
 
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
  Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
  I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on 
 another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance. 
 But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
  May be interesting food for thought.

 Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if 
 like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should mean whatever 
 they determine them to mean, is a mystery to me.

 Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP versus 
 "processes", no definition of the latter term was even given ! Because 
 of that I gave it a D- and quit.

 What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to teach 
 computer programmers how to write discursive essays. Those who appear 
 to be the most talented often have no clue.

 
 To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain 
 assumptions about your
 readers background knowledge. You can't introduce every term every time.
 For academic papers the target audience is most certainly not the D 
 newsgroup.
 The range of abilities and backgrounds here is too vast to cover without 
 several
 weighty tomes many of which would be boring to some. GIYF (Google is 
 your friend).

If the word "process" meant exactly one thing in computer programming, 
then I would agree with you. But the word "process" means something to 
me that evidently has no relation to whatever way the author of the 
article is using it, and I believe my understanding of it, after 30 
years of programming, is that of the vast majority ( a process is a 
separate executable running within an operating system's address space ).

Perhaps the author of the article should use a much more specific term, 
in general use, to describe whatever type of programming he means by 
"process", or at least provide an early reference to wherever the term 
is commonly defined.

If you are arguing about the merits of OOP versus "process" programming, 
it behooves you to explain very explicitly what you mean by the latter 
term since the former has more than two decades of understanding behind 
it and the latter is some concept you are trying to introduce and promote.

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:54:26 +0100, Edward Diener  
<eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> wrote:

 Bruce Adams wrote:

  To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain  
 assumptions about your
 readers background knowledge. You can't introduce every term every time.
 For academic papers the target audience is most certainly not the D  
 newsgroup.
 The range of abilities and backgrounds here is too vast to cover  
 without several
 weighty tomes many of which would be boring to some. GIYF (Google is  
 your friend).

 If the word "process" meant exactly one thing in computer programming,  
 then I would agree with you. But the word "process" means something to  
 me that evidently has no relation to whatever way the author of the  
 article is using it, and I believe my understanding of it, after 30  
 years of programming, is that of the vast majority ( a process is a  
 separate executable running within an operating system's address space ).

 Perhaps the author of the article should use a much more specific term,  
 in general use, to describe whatever type of programming he means by  
 "process", or at least provide an early reference to wherever the term  
 is commonly defined.

 If you are arguing about the merits of OOP versus "process" programming,  
 it behooves you to explain very explicitly what you mean by the latter  
 term since the former has more than two decades of understanding behind  
 it and the latter is some concept you are trying to introduce and  
 promote.

Intrigued by this concept I googled and found:

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/126677.html

"Process programming refers to the activity of algorithmicly describing  
models of programming activities (processes). A serious limitation of  
process programming has been that it is often hard to describe a  
programming process a priori . In this paper we present an approach to  
process programming which overcomes this limitation. Our approach is based  
on the premise that process programs are easier to describe in hindsight  
rather than by foresight, and hence can be synthesized by observing and..."

So process programming has an academic background going back to at least  
1992 without reading any further.
I suspect there will be something in the references somewhere.

Now perhaps I should take a look at the paper you're complaining  about  
before I comment further :-)

"Jim Fox" <jim consumerrecovery.com> writes:

Ed, the "humanistic" programmer.  It fits.

Email me.  Would like to communicate.

Jim Fox (RPI Physics grad and roommate; now full bore 
software/database programmer/administrator LOL)

On Sunday, 6 April 2008 at 01:47:20 UTC, Edward Diener wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
 
 Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
 
 I haven't really read it all the way through but it was 
 mentioned on another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to 
 me at first glance. But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
 
 May be interesting food for thought.

 Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, 
 as if like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should 
 mean whatever they determine them to mean, is a mystery to me.

 Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP 
 versus "processes", no definition of the latter term was even 
 given ! Because of that I gave it a D- and quit.

 What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to 
 teach computer programmers how to write discursive essays. 
 Those who appear to be the most talented often have no clue.