Reputation
5,840
Next privilege 10,000 Rep.
Access moderator tools
Badges
3 19 51
Newest
 Announcer
Impact
~115k people reached

Apr
29
comment Paid open-source app
Are your users programmers?
Apr
27
revised Approach to module development and testing
Removed tags that clearly don't have anything to do with the question.
Apr
25
awarded  Excavator
Apr
25
revised A modern review of Java
Added link to the question about C# Dictionary vs C++ std::unordered_map.
Apr
19
comment Naming convention: is it good that all subclasses have same prefix or suffix or not?
@kevincline I had ML and Haskell in mind when I wrote that.
Apr
19
answered Naming convention: is it good that all subclasses have same prefix or suffix or not?
Apr
18
comment Are there guidelines on how many parameters a function should accept?
Definitely don't follow the example of MPI_Sendrecv(), which takes 12 parameters!
Apr
16
answered C++ - Best way to have a central data repository
Apr
9
revised Techniques for getting off the ground in any language
deleted 5 characters in body
Apr
8
awarded  Scholar
Apr
8
comment How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
There are quite a few good answers on here, but I can only accept one. I've chosen this one for Robert's breadth of analysis.
Apr
8
accepted How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
Apr
6
awarded  Nice Question
Apr
6
comment How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
Possibly, but I don't recall Fortran having this degree of forking. (There was stuff like Fortran D, but most Fortrans have gone through standardization.) I suppose maybe the age of coalescing might be a factor.
Apr
6
comment How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
I actually like this idea. I can use many forms of Lisp because none of them have a "killer framework", but if I want to use Rails, I must stick with the canonical Ruby. Certainly it's not the only answer, but I do like your hypothesis.
Apr
6
comment How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
@HenrikHansen Haskell is a standard, as Robert mentions. So the HUGS compiler must be compatible with GHC since both call themselves "Haskell". The same standards-based protection extends to C and C++, which is why GCC and Visual Studio must be compatible (assuming no use of proprietary extensions). The curiosity is what happened to Lisp, where there is already a standard (Common Lisp) and yet there are many other Lisps. ML has the same issue where there's Standard ML and yet other MLs.
Apr
6
comment How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
@Sonia From a market-share perspective, fragmentation is often a disaster.
Apr
6
comment How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?
Hmm, I definitely see dictator status among homogeneous language communities like Objective-C (for iOS apps) and Ada (for Defense Department contracts). In these cases, a higher power demanded adherence, which developers followed just to be able sell their warez. But I've never been required to code in Python (hobbyist project) in the same sense that I might be required to code in C# (.Net component). Ie, I could more easily flee Python than, say, C. Without this threat of use it or you won't make sales, how can a dictator hold onto the flock? That might be a separate question though.
Apr
5
awarded  Student
Apr
5
asked How were some language communities (eg, Ruby and Python) able to prevent fragmentation while others (eg, Lisp or ML) were not?