1

Topic: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Kind morning to all of us! The people, prompt, , it is possible where to look at a subject. At least the simple table on languages with complexity factors and short explanations. I found nothing Something. And internal sensation that once somewhere similar saw.

2

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Hello, ry, you wrote: ry> the People, prompt, , it is possible where to look at a subject. At least the simple table on languages with complexity factors and short explanations. ry> I found nothing Something. And internal sensation that once somewhere similar saw. If to sort by possibilities for brain carrying out, malbogle-> brainfck/Ook!/Shakespeare/...-> php/js-> haskell/ocaml-> c ++-> , not? And http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1995 … ge-feature after. Well and if it is necessary "the British scientists proved", .

3

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

ry> I found nothing Something. And internal sensation that once somewhere similar saw. 11/27/2007 on RSDN there was a subject: Comparing of programming languages - thoughts In a forum Philosophy. In particular, there the book of Sverdlova was mentioned: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/3056680/ In this book there are elements of comparing of languages on complexity - on the basis of comparing

4

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Hello, ry, you wrote: ry> the People, prompt, , it is possible where to look at a subject. At least the simple table on languages with complexity factors and short explanations. ry> I found nothing Something. And internal sensation that once somewhere similar saw. If it is rough, it is possible to count an amount of characters in the language standard.

5

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Hello, Mystic, you wrote: M> If it is rough, it is possible to count an amount of characters in the language standard. For me such accuracy excessive

6

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Hello, LaptevVV, you wrote: LVV> In this book there are elements of comparing of languages on complexity - on the basis of comparing  Grammar of familiar language differently easier, than unfamiliar or forgotten partially. And at a considerable quantity of experience of programming in different languages they will be faster to look here so:

7

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

LVV>> In this book there are elements of comparing of languages on complexity - on the basis of comparing  V> Grammar of familiar language differently easier, than unfamiliar or forgotten partially. Not.  here for no reason at all. You do not distinguish difficulty and complexity. Difficulty - it is subjective, depends on knowledge of the person. And complexity - is objective, does not depend on knowledge of the person. Business is simple in grammar volume: how many , how many terminals, how many keywords, how many rules, averages everyones. For example, average length of rules

8

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Hello, LaptevVV, you wrote: LVV> Not.  here for no reason at all. You do not distinguish difficulty and complexity. LVV> difficulty - it is subjective, depends on knowledge of the person. LVV> and complexity - is objective, does not depend on knowledge of the person. Difficulty and complexity is terms which your brain bosses. For me difficulty and complexity not synonyms, but it does not mean at all that I understand them in the same way. For example, what it is more difficult, English or Russian? Insufficiently simply to count an amount of word forms. For a human brain complexity of languages is subjective, and in training he will just test difficulty in unfamiliar concepts. To take, for example, human sight, it is adaptive. With perception of programming languages too all is not absolute. Roughly telling, in one language two white circles, and in other one black box, and like as two white circles it is more difficult, at least because their two though on the other hand at a square four sides and four peaks, and in practice for a brain of a special difference are not present. The amount of neurons all the same does not increase, and communications form according to data retrieveds. Besides language it is not simple means of expression of thoughts, but also restriction for them. If language wins ease for the account of restriction of constructions created by means of it, whether it is necessary to consider that as its lung? Or here still an example: the Chinese code the Chinese code the Chinese code the Chinese code or 4 times the Chinese code That is more difficult, the first or the second? Moreover, if the mash from unfamiliar characters here has been written to understand it became where more difficult, and compression so simply would not transit. A problem that any knowledge should be correlated to object of knowledge. In this case simple quantitative count of nodes and communications cannot be criterion of complexity as each time corresponds with a nervous network of the person. Here tell as an abstraction what is more difficult in the geometries, two white circles or one black box and why, what method calculated "objective" complexity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqKPI0E8bsI

9

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

Hello, velkin, you wrote: V> Here tell as an abstraction that is more difficult in the geometries, two white circles or one black box, very interesting question. At first sight - the circle is easier. But, starting to think and decompose on leaving, I understand, as one white circle is much more difficult than a black box. What at a square is? The edge with its length, a right angle and black color - very simple making, besides very simple and clear calculation formulas of perimeter and the area That is at a circle? It would Seem only diameter (radius). But... Calculation of length of a circle and the area. Here this Pi. A pancake. And white color? Where black to it. V> and why, what method calculated "objective" complexity? Here somehow so.

10

Re: Comparing of programming languages on complexity

V> Besides language it is not simple means of expression of thoughts, but also restriction for them. If language wins ease for the account of restriction of constructions created by means of it, whether it is necessary to consider that as its lung? Or here still an example: V> V> the Chinese code V> the Chinese code V> the Chinese code V> the Chinese code V> or V> V> 4 times the Chinese code V> That is more difficult, the first or the second? V> here tell as an abstraction what is more difficult in the geometries, two white circles or one black box and why, what method calculated "objective" complexity? 1. There is no yet a standard point of view how to measure complexity. 2.  it is possible to measure by a variety (not an amount of objects, and an amount of different entities). From this position two white circles = to 1 black box (from both sides on 2 essences: a figure and color). The Chinese code resulted above the first variant (is less added) easier, than the second.