CPSC 401 Spring 2007. Reading List

1. CHROMATIC. 2006 The World's Most Maintainable Programming Language: Part 1 - O'Reilly ONLamp Blog. http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/03/the_worlds_most_maintainable_p.html

2. DYSON, G. 2005. TURING'S CATHEDRAL Edge, The Third Culture. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson05/dyson05_index.html#tc

A visit to Google on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of John von Neumann's proposal for a digital computer

3. FERGUSON, A. 2004. The History of Computer Programming Languages http://www.princeton.edu/~ferguson/adw/programming_languages.shtml

An essay about the history of programming languages through Perl.

4. GRAHAM, P. 2003. The Hundred-Year Language http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html

An essay on the future of programming languages. Also addresses the issue of the evolution or development of a programming language. Some good thoughts about the essence of a programming language and the role of efficiency.

5. GOGUEN, J. 2002. An Essay on Comparative Programming Linguistics http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/goguen/papers/compl.html

6. BACKUS, J. 1978. Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs Communications of the ACM, 21, 8, 613-641.

7. MITCHEL, J.C and HARPER, R. 1988. The essence of ML Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 28 - 46.

8. SPOONER, C.R. 1986. The ML approach to the readable all-purpose language ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 8, 12, 215-243.

9. HIDAK, P. 1989. Conception, evolution, and application of functional programming languages ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 21, 3, 359 - 411.

9. MOREIRA, J.E., Midkiff, S. P. and Gupta, M. 2001. A comparison of three approaches to language, compiler, and library support for multidimensional arrays in Java Proceedings of the 2001 joint ACM-ISCOPE conference on Java Grande, 116-125

10. GABRIEL, R.P. 1991Worse Is Better http://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html

"Lisp has done quite well over the last ten years: becoming nearly standardized, forming the basis of a commercial sector, achieving excellent performance, having good environments, able to deliver applications. Yet the Lisp community has failed to do as well as it could have. In this paper I look at the successes, the failures, and what to do next."

11. JELLIFFE, R. 2004 Lisp is better than XML, but worse is better http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/6021

"At the dawn of XML, some LISP fans would say that XML was just a crappy LISP. (The clueier LISP fans would use "s-expr" or SEXPR or S-expressions, as the Lots of Irritating Silly Parentheses syntax is known.) But Java plus XML plus the Beanshell interpreter is a pretty nice crappy LISP!"

12. Ogasawara, T., Komatsu, H. and Nakatani, T. 2001. A study of exception handling and its dynamic optimization in Java Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications archive Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, 83 - 95.

13. TAO WANG, T. and Roychoudhury, A. 2004. Using Compressed Bytecode Traces for Slicing Java Programs International Conference on Software Engineering archive Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, 512 - 521.

14. COLMERAUER, A. 1985. Prolog in 10 figures Communications of the ACM, 28, 12, 1296 - 1310.

15. COHEN, J. 1985. Describing Prolog by its interpretation and compilation Communications of the ACM, 28, 12, 1311 - 1324.

16. KUMAR, A. N. 2002. Prolog for imperative programmers Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17, 6, 167 - 181.

17. NORVIG, P. 2001. Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html

An essay dealing with what it takes to learn a programming language.