#WASTELAND 3 OCTOBER 11 HOW TO#
#WASTELAND 3 OCTOBER 11 CODE#
#WASTELAND 3 OCTOBER 11 SERIES#

It is obvious that such a tree structure also represents a line of a functional program.Wasteland 3 is a massive RPG set in a post-apocalyptic world with loads of quests to complete. Each branch of the tree is a function that contains other functions (or operands). Ket is a structure editor which represents an equation as a tree (i.e. But for faster and more general editing, various (Vim-like) keyboard commands exist to rapidly edit an expression. And common operations (like duplicating an expression) can be performed by mouse gesture (right-drag up). Click-and-drag algebra is available, for example dragging a term in a product to the other side of an equation to divide through by it. To facilitate this, editing can be done with a keyboard or mouse. As a result, the editor is built around вЂmodal editingвЂ™ - making a lot of quick and simple edits.

#WASTELAND 3 OCTOBER 11 SERIES#

What makes it different is that, with experience, you can solve algebra problems as quickly as on paper, but with the advantage of undo, copy/paste, a built in calculator and algebra-simplification.ДЄlgebra consists of a series of transformations and combinations of equations. It displays lists of equations in regular maths notation (mark-up) and is written in plain text (mark-down). Ket ( ) is a new way of performing algebra on a computer.

#WASTELAND 3 OCTOBER 11 HOW TO#

IвЂ™ve no idea how to do this for programming, but IвЂ™ve had a go for maths.

#WASTELAND 3 OCTOBER 11 CODE#

And when debugging, IвЂ™d like all code that isnвЂ™t related to a particular failed test case to be cleanly removed. For example, when exploring new code, it would be nice to explore it in terms of various interactive UML diagrams. I think the next big jump will be to retain a clean and simple text representation, but youвЂ™ll move between various graphical representations of code. I understand the advantages of plain text, but IвЂ™m surprised by how little interactive graphical representations of code are used to refactor it. But if itвЂ™s happening, I havenвЂ™t come across it. I wish I could point to areas where this kind of transformational, philosophically-driven innovation is being performed today.

But in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, people like Alan Kay and Ivan Sutherland dreamed bigger, and even their вЂњfailuresвЂќ changed the face of programming and computing. These are fundamentally derivative ideas.Д«uilding incremental improvements on old things is good and important work.

Or, alternately, вЂњIвЂ™m tired of programmers screwing X up. But they are are languages that exist because someone said вЂњI like programming as we know it, I just want to change X and YвЂќ. These are all great languages, with a lot to recommend them. Witness the rise of languages like Go (вЂњC with GC and CSPвЂќ), Rust (вЂњC++, but less horribleвЂќ), Elixir (вЂњErlang, but less horribleвЂќ), and Clojure (вЂњLisp without the cruft and mutabilityвЂќ). And where there is innovation, it is often in service to the cold gods of performance or predictability, rather than opening new vistas of computer-mediated creation. Most of the вЂњnew hotnessвЂќ technologies are cobbled-together bits of older technologies. Programming in 2015 feels a bit like Mad Max sometimes. Things like вЂњoptional semicolonsвЂќ and вЂњopen classesвЂќ are less exciting if you havenвЂ™t spent the preceding five years coding in Java or C#. Most of the design decisions that cause me to love it turn out to be difficult to explain to someone who has learned to program in Ruby. My language of choice for the last ~10 years, Ruby, is very much in this vein. Usually, the vision amounted to вЂњhelp programmers serve the computer more easilyвЂќ, or sometimes вЂњbe like $older_language, only a little less painfulвЂќ.

If the implementation couldnвЂ™t keep up, new implementation techniques had to be created.ДЄmong other advances, we have this approach to thank for the HotSpot compiler, technology originally created to make dynamic programming in Self feasible on 1980s hardware.Д«y contrast, most programming languages IвЂ™ve worked with professionally were born from much less ambitious visions. If existing language or interaction paradigms were insufficient to realize the goal, new ones had to be invented. These were systems that flowed out of a distinct philosophy and the intent to change the world. Alan Kay, The Early History of SmalltalkДЄs IвЂ™ve become more familiar with the history of projects like Sketchpad, Smalltalk, and Self, IвЂ™ve been fascinated by the qualitative difference in approach their builders brought to programming system design, compared to most recent languages. We were actually trying for a qualitative shift in belief structures-a new Kuhnian paradigm in the same spirit as the invention of the printing press-and thus took highly extreme positions which almost forced these new styles to be invented.

Wasteland 3 october 11