Fwd: [SIGCIS-Members] So.Hist-info seminar 15/06/2026 - Amelie Mittlemeier - Programming languages and Communities of Programming

[Larry Masinter]

The last talk in their schedule is Monday .... of some interest?  

Do we have anything to say about Medley Interlisp and Common Lisp as programming languages?

https://LarryMasinter.net  https://interlisp.org

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Camille Paloque-Bergès via Members <mem...@lists.sigcis.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 7:24 AM
Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] So.Hist-info seminar 15/06/2026 - Amelie Mittlemeier - Programming languages and Communities of Programming
To: <mem...@lists.sigcis.org>

Dear colleagues,

The So.Hist-Info seminar, coordinated by Mathilde Fichen, Camille Paloque-Bergès, and Adrien Tournier at the HT2S laboratory, and Léandre Bécard at COSTECH (UTC), invites you on Monday, June 15, 2026, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Cnam, 2 rue Conté (Paris FR) Room 30.-1.18, for its sixth and final session of the 2025-2026 season.

We will welcome Amelie Mittlmeier (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) for a presentation in English entitled:

Programming Languages and Communities of Programming

The speaker will discuss the importance of software in the historical formation and structuring of computing communities.

To attend the seminar, please register here. A videoconference link will be sent to you upon registration.

Abstract:

The emergence of so-called high-level programming languages at the end of the 1950s not only marked a technological shift from earlier automatic coding systems but also gave rise to distinct communities of computing. Languages such as FORTRAN and ALGOL were not merely technical tools; they became focal points around which practitioners organized themselves, forming user groups and professional identities. In this sense, programming languages did not simply serve pre-existing communities – they actively contributed to their formation.

As these communities developed, so too did debates about the relative merits of different programming languages. However, these discussions were marked by the absence of clearly defined and widely accepted criteria for evaluating programming languages. They reflected deeper disagreements about the nature of programming itself – whether it should be understood as a scientific discipline, an engineering practice, or even an artistic endeavor.

This lecture asks why the question of the “best” programming language became such a relevant and persistent concern among experts - and why it lost its relevance at the end of the 1960s. It examines the debates between different language communities and analyzes how these controversies shaped both technological development and the emerging research field of programming. By situating these discussions in their historical context, the talk highlights how competition and disagreement contributed to deepening experts’ understanding of programming and thus to the formation of the field.

https://sohistinfo.github.io/

--

Institutional email address : camille.pal...@cnam.fr

*Laboratory for the History of Techno-Sciences (HT2S), Conservatoire national des arts et métiers, 2 rue Conté, 75003 Paris, France

_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

[Paolo Amoroso]

This report you wrote with Bill van Melle in 1981 seems relevant as it discussed the state of Common Lisp standardization from the angle of the Interlisp community: Report on Common Lisp to the Interlisp Community.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Medley Interlisp core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lispcore+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lispcore/CAKq15vcGkoGseU74nLY2VGNYYFDXX-cRq1VGuKcD2LbR7eWvDw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Paolo Amoroso | Blog | Mastodon

[pixel...@gmail.com]

I wasn't around then but some things come to mind...

I've only used Fortran and Algol on a few coffee breaks for the novelty so color me clueless in some regard.
I've managed the remnants of COBOL shop and consider it a pox with several anti-features like global scope and no user defined functions until 2002.

As I understand LISP (Stylised for the Era)

It seems the differentiator for Lisp in general was a language that was supremely flexible (programmable itself) for a field that was a new frontier.
The notion of symbolic computation is probably important too. 
Rather than rigid predefined forms for "variables" and "data" you had collections that had very low friction to construction, evaluation, and printing.
It's probably worth noting that allowing functions as first class citizens also lets you leave algorithms like "sort" and "map" open ended.

That's what it SEEMS like to me anyway. 
For a fuzzy new field you need a language that handles the abstraction of late phase unknowns without putting up a fight.

Just some thoughts, I wasn't able to be a part of that era.

- Ryan

[Paolo Amoroso]

You mean COBOL isn't great for writing a first person shooter? 😀

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lispcore/4e84f490-8603-40b2-a475-ea005b41583fn%40googlegroups.com.