<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412118</id><updated>2011-04-22T00:08:08.159+02:00</updated><title type='text'>Shifting Focus</title><subtitle type='html'>I'm a computer engineer with a scientist bend who like programming languages. For me the subject fascinates as a mix of aestethics, user interface, theory, pragmatism, engineering, and craft: type systems, syntax, macros, staged programming, modularity, compilers, attribute grammars. Infatuations include OCaml and Python.</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://shiftingfocus.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5412118/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://shiftingfocus.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><author><name>Martin</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>1</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412118.post-105456734108351168</id><published>2003-06-02T17:22:00.000+02:00</published><updated>2004-12-14T11:30:55.223+01:00</updated><title type='text'>Language Complexity</title><summary type='text'>The other day I wrote the following on Slashdot:C++ is a complex beast of a language where features interact in extremly subtle and often pathological ways. You might not pay for the features you don't use in performance, but you often end up doing so in cognitive load.I thought of it when I read this in a post by Sigfried Gonzi over at gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria:I estimate the learning curve</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://shiftingfocus.blogspot.com/feeds/105456734108351168/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5412118&amp;postID=105456734108351168' title='2 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5412118/posts/default/105456734108351168'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5412118/posts/default/105456734108351168'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://shiftingfocus.blogspot.com/2003/06/language-complexity.html' title='Language Complexity'/><author><name>Martin</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>2</thr:total></entry></feed>
