Erik Engbrecht has posted a well-written piece on his blog regarding a way of classifying programming languages. His purpose, he writes, is to make a structure for opening up debate and discussion on the subject. I like the dimensions he chose, and the resulting classifications of certain languages:

Read Programming Language Continuum.

For my UK friends, SaveBuckets.co.uk is a price comparison website similar to our American “Nextag” site. You can find everything from audio books and mp3 players to clothes and shoes. I like the abbreviated results at the end: you get a very quick view of who’s selling something and for how much.

Another thing that popped out to me as a web developer: there is a small animated spinner that is activated when you start a search. Unlike other spinners I’ve seen, this one spins very quickly. Subjectively, it felt like the search happened in a flash, even though it was quite likely a normal HTTP response time. Just a little trick in the toolbag to keep in mind

I heard about MacHeist last year when it was in its first glorious round. This year, they seem to be doing even better, with last year’s record in sales (16k) already broken.

Basically, a bunch of Mac software developers got together and offered their products at a huge discount just to spur interest in the independent development community. The success from last year was great, and the software this year is really cool. Even the single photoshop-like program, Pixelmator, makes the purchase more than worth it—but you get 9 other apps on top of that. With thanks to my generous wife, I am now the enthusiastic owner of 1Password, CSSEdit, SnapZ Pro X, and Pixelmator, among others.

Check it out! (Your interest will help unlock the last app, NoteBook )

With each class period, the features of Scheme seem more and more enticing. I’ve wanted to explore functional programming languages for a while, so with my toe now in the pool, I’m looking at other languages and thinking about swimming

• Scheme: The one I’m exploring most right now. As suggested by Professor Windley, our class is using the DrScheme editor and interpreter. It is not purely functional, since it has side effects. Also, its dynamic typing system (while advantageous in many cases) makes it so the interpreter cannot assume things that would otherwise make for cool features, such as in…
• Haskell: Seems to be the cool kid on the block, with loads of academic new features. From discussions around the web, the fact that it is a “pure” functional language that has no side effects (except within well-determined blocks called “monads“) makes it special. Also, Haskell’s type system is (apparently) to be envied. There is an online book called the School of Expression that comes recommended to me.
• Ocaml: The fastest compiled code and the least rigid functional language. I am told that if you need to do imperative code or enlist an object-oriented style of coding, Ocaml will accommodate those options even though it is a functional language at its base.
• AliceML: This has some pretty cool concurrency features that are worth looking in to.
• Clean: Seems to share the same heady space as Haskell in that its features are often experimental PhD students’ ideas. I like its direction, and the fact that its IDE is built in the Clean language definitely says something of its practical use. Like Haskell, Clean is also a “pure” functional language.

I benefited from this Haskell vs Ocaml discussion thread on O’Reilly.

Update: The Qi language also looks interesting. It appears to be a derivative of Lisp, with some new syntax.

Also, there’s an interesting benchmark shootout for all of our favorite languages. It looks like Clean is pretty dang fast.

Some time ago, my friend and business partner, Greg Narain, and I set out to build a system for connecting bloggers and advertisers. Advertisers would get to create “campaigns” with intended marketing outcomes, and bloggers would get paid for writing content or reviewing products. We called it “xposted”, (like “cross-posted”), but in the end it never flew.

Now, there’s a service called Smorty (blog advertising) that aims to do much what we’d tried. It looks like they’re on their way to building the necessary infrastructure and people capital to push them past the tipping point. I’ve joined up to see what it’s like. We’ll see what happens.

B. J. Lawson is running for congress in North Carolina as a Ron Paul Republican. He needs $300k by the end of this month to make a good showing.

I’m going to begin donating to each of these constitution-abiding candidates throughout the Republic. Even a Utahn can help that way!

I’m taking a computer science class this semester called “Concepts of Programming Languages” from Dr. Phil Windley. We’ll be using the Scheme language as a tool to explore language features and concepts.

Since I am most familiar with another dynamic, late-bound language (Ruby), of particular interest to me is how Scheme and Ruby differ. Here are some notes so far:

• Macros: There is no way to create a true macro in Ruby. For example, one cannot create an “if” function, or an “and” operator—these are embedded in and defined by the language itself.
• Speed: Scheme is about 30 times faster than Ruby, if my sources are correct. On a scale that sets the speed of C at 1.0, Dr. Windley (as an estimate) put Scheme at 2 or 3, Java at 5 or 6, and Ruby at 30. Ouch.
• OO: Ruby is an object-oriented scripting language. It doesn’t have to be, I suppose, but it is used most powerfully when its OO features are embraced. Scheme, on the other hand, is not inherently object oriented. However, from what I understand, because it has nested scope and closures, it is possible to use it in an OO way (I have yet to understand this properly).

I also recommend this discussion thread on Ruby vs. Scheme which was recently highlighted on dzone.com.

With speed, deployment and concurrency all becoming important elements of my programming requirements, I’m excited to take a look at other languages and see what they have to offer. Scheme is one that looks to be enlightening.

I can’t wait ’til we really dig into macros

Harold Bloom recently warned that “what we are seeing is the fall of America.” While such a statement is dire, Bloom himself is quite insightful and witty. I was captivated by his intelligence and what amounts to 70 years of critical thinking. In particular, he mentioned in passing that America is “a third oligarchy, a third plutocracy and a third theocracy”. I wondered, if that’s so, where would the presidential candidates line up? Here is my attempt at understanding them from this perspective:

Clinton, if elected, would obviously be a part of a 20-year oligarchical reign in America. She’s connected like no other. McCain is Bush’s heir apparent and, if the economy and things in Iraq weren’t such a mess, he would probably have already been declared the Republican nominee. Thompson, Romney and Giuliani are connected to the powerful Council on Foreign Relations—Giuliani is especially connected to elite power circles and thrives on loyalty and favors. Huckabee is the obvious theocrat in the bunch, although I think Romney also leans that way. The little guys, Paul and Kucinich, are the only remaining candidates who don’t fit in the “thirds”. As labeled above, I am unsure of the placement of Obama and Edwards.

Any thoughts?

Note: if you’re unfamiliar with the terms, here is a short primer with links to Wikipedia:

Oligarchy is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers).

Plutocracy refers to the rule or power through wealth or by the wealthy.

Theocracy is a form of government in which a God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler.

I found the following Roosevelt quote while rummaging through some of my old files. It humbled me to think of how little I actually do… so many others are active and unsung heros in the cause of freedom. Like Murray Sabrin, for example, from New Jersey who is a “Ron Paul Republican” running for senate. I wonder what would happen if all of the Ron Paul revolutionaries started backing heros like this on a state-by-state basis. I think of Professor Sabrin and Dr. Paul as “in the arena”:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt, “Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

I’ve been thinking about this question a lot since I first heard a presentation at the end of 2006 by US Comptroller, David Walker, who clearly stated that we are living beyond our means and that severe consequences will follow—the sooner our leaders address this issue the better, in other words.

This week, David was on the Glenn Beck show to talk about our nation’s fiscal insolvency. Here is the clip on YouTube:

I am a big proponent of sound fiscal policies and living within our means. But as I considered the huge discrepency between what we have and what we owe, I started to wonder, “Why are we still here?” In other words, if we are insolvent, why can we still borrow and survive, even thrive?

It seems to have to do with force of arms. Because of our military strength, even though we are bankrupt as a nation, we still have the strength to decline repayment if we choose, or to protect our allies, and destroy our enemies. If a creditor comes to us and asks for their payment, we can say “No”.

But can that last? I don’t think so. I think there is a time coming soon when the demands of justice will overwhelm the power of armament. Justice is a power that works from the inside and the outside—it does not pick sides. Military strength, on the other hand, can decidedly be partisan—for now, we have more strength than our enemies. But when justice calls, it weakens resolve and leads us to questions ourselves—when the power of justice works from the inside, we may start to wonder what we are fighting to preserve.

Those who believe in entitlement to the world’s resources (e.g. those who refer to Iraq as an “American interest”) will fight to the end for “their slice of the pie”. But little by little, those of us who hear the calls for justice will have to admit—even if it is only in our hearts—that we have spent beyond our means, that foreign demand for repayment is a just demand. If we fail to uphold justice, America will fall from the inside out, hollow and devoid of integrity.

I believe that is why we must elect honest leaders and fiscally conservative politicians to the highest offices of the land.