= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on Open thread, Nov. 23 - Nov. 29, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (257)
That the implementation of python is fairly slow is a different matter, and high-level languages need not be any slower than, say, C or Fortran, as modern JIT languages demonstrate. It just takes a lot of work to make them fast.
Lisp was also designed during that same period and probably proves your point even better. But 1960's Lisp was as bare-bones as it was high-level; you still had to wrote almost everything yourself from scratch.
Computerized math is the same today. No one wants to write everything they need from scratch, unless they're working in a genuinely self-contained (i.e. 'synthetic') subfield where the prereqs are inherently manageable. See programming languages (with their POPLmark challenge) and homotopy-type-theory as examples of such where computerization is indeed making quick progress.
Umm... LISP is elegant and expressive -- you can (and people routinely do) construct complicated environments including DSLs on top of it. But that doesn't make it high-level -- it only makes it a good base for high-level things.
But if you use "high-level" to mean "abstracted away from the hardware" then yes, it was, but that doesn't have much to do with "writing out your thoughts".