Dynamic Languages Wizards Series - Panel on Language Design

What people said

EdwardCoffin · 2025-11 · Strong recommendation

In a similar vein is this 2003 post in an MIT discussion forum by Scott McKay [1]. I'd also highly recommend that anyone interested in this kind of thing listen to all three of the Dynamic Languages Wizards Series panels from 2001: runtime [2], language design [3], and compilation [4] Note that though these are videos, there isn't that much compelling in the visual portion, you could easily rip them to audio files and lose little. [1] [LINK] [2] [LINK] [3] [VIDEO] [4] [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗

EdwardCoffin · 2015-07 · Recommendation

In 2001 MIT had the Dynamic Languages Wizards Series [1], which consisted of three panels of luminaries in the field (videos and participants names on the linked page). A lot of history was discussed in their 5+ hours. They are also on YouTube: Panel on Runtime: Richard Kelsey, David Moon, Tucker Withington, Kim Barrett, Scott McKay [2] Panel on Compilation: David Detlefs, Will Clinger, Martin Rinard, and Mat Hostetter [3] Panel on Language Design: Paul Graham, John Maeda, Jonathan Rees, Guy Steele [4] --- [1] [LINK] [2] [LINK] [3] [LINK] [4] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

nomilk · 2024-04 · Reference

First impressions apply to languages too. A lot of mathematicians went into AI but didn't start out with any programming experience. They dabbled in some languages and gravitated toward the one(s) they found most useful. Paraphrasing Guy Steele [1]: > It's important that when you design a language that does a familiar thing, that you do the familiar thing exactly... it's criminal that you can write 1/2 and get values nowhere near one-half. Python >>> 1/2 0.5 Ruby irb(main):001> 1/2 0 To a novice programmer, ruby's result makes no sense, and introduces an incredible degree of doubt into the mind of the user. Sure, they could explore why it gives that result, but if that's not helping them get toward solving the problem they're using the programming language for in the first place, then it could seem like an indulgent tangent. [1] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗