Re: advantages of forth over other languages

John Doty wrote:
> In my experience it's barriers in *programmers'* minds. I see powerful 
> evidence that that barrier exists in *your* mind, but you are blind to 
> it. It does not exist in mine. If a program is the right solution, I'll 
> write a program. But I might also compute a logarithm with a diode (what

> fraction of programmers would ever consider that alternative?).

That's a painfully stupid question because it ignores both the domain 
the programmer works in and their ability to affect the system.  So if 
we're talking about a database programmer or a programmer writing 
scripts to automate financial calculations in Excel, chances are their 
training and experience wouldn't lead them to an analog solution.  But 
even if they did have that background, what good would it be?  Where 
exactly would they stick the diode in MySQL or Excel to act as a 
logarithm coprocessor?  Duh.

If we're talking about a embedded systems programmer, then that is a 
different matter.  Embedded systems programmers by and large are very 
much aware of the analog world and the few who aren't quickly learn. 
Where I've worked, we often will use analog insights to simplify our 
designs.  I replaced the digital logic used to read a 16-position 
encoder with a resistor ladder hooked to a A/D converter, saving pins 
and simplifying the code.  A fellow engineer who needed a high-quality 
white noise source noted that by adding a reverse-biased Zener diode to 
the system, he could eliminate code for a pseudorandom noise source.

But these analog insights wouldn't matter if embedded systems 
programmers had the limited role you believe they have.  I and most 
embedded systems programmers have the ability (role, responsibility, and 
experience) to direct the system's hardware.

Your fundamental problem seems to be that you're stuck in some old model 
of what a programmer is.  To you, a programmer does nothing more than 
program; he has no insights beyond how to line up braces and know where 
the semicolon goes.  And to the extent that is true in your experience, 
all it tells me is that where you work must be a truly awful place, 
especially for those with the job title of "programmer."  You must treat 
those guys like crap.  Or perhaps in a fit of self-fulfilling prophecy, 
you create your reality by only hiring programmers who are limited to 
just coding, and reject those who have experience and insights outside 
that as overqualified.  Either way, sounds awful.

> You give lip service to the idea that programmers are also domain 
> experts, but then you also refer to programmers as masters of 
> specialized arcana like "design patterns". Very few real domain experts 
> know what a design pattern is.

A design pattern is nothing more than a way to communicate the elements 
that produce successful systems.  When I first came across design 
patterns, I was struck by how familiar it all was.  And that's because 
the same kinds of patterns that I had independently discovered in my own 
work were also discovered by others.  The only thing the design pattern 
did was to give the pattern a name, a context, usually an example, and a 
discussion about it's relation****p to other patterns.

So design patterns are only "arcane" in the weakest sense of the word-- 
if I use a design pattern name like Observer or Chain of Responsibility, 
you might not know specifically what that means.  But chances are very 
good you've implemented those patterns.  The value of design patterns 
then is that you can communicate designs easier because you're speaking 
the same language.

> I mostly work with experimental physicists. Compared to them, 99% of 
> people who call themselves "programmers" are just code monkeys. But 
> physicists can write pretty good code.
> 
> You're like the fish that has reached the surface of the water and 
> thinks he's reached outer space. You have a long way to go.

And you're the fish who has swam in the same school for years and 
believes every school is exactly like his.  Your programmers are code 
monkeys, so to you, all programmers are code monkeys.

>> All I can tell you is that companies that run on that model (strict 
>> and limiting roles described by job titles) is increasingly rare in my 
>> experience.
> 
> Sure. But do the programmers actually master the domain, or do they just

> pretend? Do you even know how to tell?
> 
> Programming as a profession seems to be particularly attractive to 
> narrow minds. I guess the artificial world of the computer is less 
> threatening than the real world.

That's funny.  When I'm flipping on the oscilloscope to capture signal 
reflections or to measure the rise-time of a analog signal, I seem to be 
pretty much in the real world.  Your jab against programmers fails for 
embedded systems programmers.  We're so much in the real world that it 
hurts-- sometimes literally.

It also fails against for programmers in other domains.  When the 
programmer who writes financial applications notices that the 
specifications he's been handed would lead to a system that conflicts 
with Sarbanes-Oxley, how is that not being in the real world?  When the 
game programmer who is optimizing a shading algorithm to take advantage 
of the spectral sensitivity of the human eye, how is that not being in 
the real world?

> And programming is the most abstract form of engineering.

Weird.  So when I'm measuring the EMI produced by my code, that's 
abstract?  When I'm profiling code to identify hotspots that would be 
more efficiently handled in a FPGA, that's abstract?  When I'm comparing 
the current draw of different routines, that's abstract?

Care to qualify your statements any?

>> If that is a genius to you, then you have a low threshold for genius. 
>> Again, the true genius is one who can cut across disciplines and 
>> realize systems from the bottom to the top.  True genius is a mixture 
>> of both scientist and engineer, and sometimes marketing and management.
> 
> I agree. But I have rarely encountered anyone like that who would call 
> themselves a "programmer".

Then you need to start swimming away from the school you're in and look 
at the larger world.