2 ms·

Why would adopting language X's features make X less awesome?

apu 17y ago
Because awesome is usually used in a relative sense -- something is awesome compared to other stuff. The implicit other stuff is "everything else."
- lispm 17y ago
  You are making that up. Awesome is a description like 'green'. Yesterday we saw an awesome game. The sound of the new stereo is awesome. The view from that skyscraper is awesome. If I compare something I'd say: Yesterday I saw the most awesome game. etc.
  - justinhj 17y ago
    Not really. Inspiring awe is a property based on when you see it. If you could demo an iphone to someone in 1970 it would be awesome; if you demo it to someone in 2015 it would be an old iphone. Green is forever.
    - lispm 17y ago
      a Porsche from 1970 is still awesome. There are many things that have timeless qualities. Every time I hear 'The Man Machine' from Kraftwerk I think how awesome it is. 'The Grand Canyon is awesome' - how does that depend on WHEN I see it. As long as there is a Grand Canyon, it is awesome. It is of no concern if there are things less or more awesome. The Grand Canyon is just 'awesome'. Lisp has for some people also timeless qualities. One of these people is Alan Kay (of Smalltalk, Dynabook, etc.) fame. Check some day what Alan thinks about Lisp: http://bc.tech.coop/blog/060224.html http://bc.tech.coop/blog/060224.html "Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance of Lisp. Lisp is the most important idea in computer science."
      - blasdel 17y ago
        I can not think of a more clearly terrible example than Geology! The Grand Canyon is in no way exempt from time -- millions of years ago it was just another unremarkable course of the Colorado River, and millions of years from now it will have eroded to nothingness. The Himalayas used to be an unremarkable coastline, and the Appalachians hills were once taller than Everest is now.
        lispm 17y ago
        Awesome is an impression by a person that makes an observation. Millions ago the earth had no Grand Canyon (and thus could not be observed) and millions years ago there were no observers that could be impressed by something. As long as there is a GRAND CANYON (a label for an observable geological feature given by man) the GRAND CANYON will be awesome. Your father found the Grand Canyon awesome and and your children will find it awesome, too. For us humans the Grand Canyon, as long it is there and as long we are there, is 'awesome'. 'Awesome' is an impression that humans have of something. It has nothing to do with geological timescales.
        jodrellblank 17y ago
        Unless there is an atomic spaceship war in a hundred years which scars the earth with canyons that size every few hundred miles. Then our grand children will not find "the Grand Canyon" awesome, they will find it "just another of those huge canyons that are everywhere and really boring". Redwoods are awesome trees because of their size. If all other trees died out and Redwoods were the only tree, they wouldn't be awesome, they would be "normal tree size". Unless you are high you don't go around being awe inspired by everyday things. Awesome is implicitly comparing with "everything else". Different things aren't awesome, but awesome things are different - but only while they are different. > a Porsche from 1970 is still awesome Not to me. A Veyron, now that's awesome. Spitfires are awesome, but only anachronistically - for their time and their reputation at the time - they don't hold a candle to a modern fighter.
        lispm 17y ago
    - lispm 17y ago
      http://www.porsche.com/germany/sportandevents/motorsport/history/racingcars/70ies/1970-gulf917-4-9kurzheckcoupe/ http://www.porsche.com/germany/sportandevents/motorsport/his... http://www.ausmotive.com/2009/03/20/porsche-917-celebrates-40th-birthday.html http://www.ausmotive.com/2009/03/20/porsche-917-celebrates-4... You would not find that Porsche 917 from 1970 awesome? http://www.ausmotive.com/images/Porsche-917-01.jpg http://www.ausmotive.com/images/Porsche-917-01.jpg
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    First time I went to New Mexico I saw some Kachini dolls. They looked, well, awesome. After a few days or so, I saw many, many more Kachina dolls, such that I could start seeing differences in quality. Those first ones I saw? They really weren't all that awesome. They were actually sort of crappy, once I saw some truly awesome handiwork. Whether or not something inspires awe really does depend on previous experience.
    - lispm 17y ago
      how are the Niagara falls less awesome on the 8.Jan 2010 compared to 7.Jan.2010?
      - likpok 17y ago
        You are misunderstanding his point. Lisp used to be awesome because it implemented feature X. That is, show people feature X in Lisp, and they would be impressed because nothing else did X. Now, everything does X. Showing someone Lisp doing X will get the response of 'So what?'. Therefore, Lisp is no longer awesome because of feature X.
        lispm 17y ago
        You are misunderstanding the original point. Lisp has certain qualities that are rare, designed in a special way and work together in special ways. Almost none of the mainstream scripting languages uses simple code as data as Lisp does. Not Ruby. Not Python. Not PHP. Not JavaScript. None of them have the roots in a meta-circular interpreter that fits on a page. http://arcfn.com/2008/07/maxwells-equations-of-software-examined.html http://arcfn.com/2008/07/maxwells-equations-of-software-exam... None of those allow me to write symbolic computations in a simple and straight forward way like I can do it in Lisp. I find that awesome.
        likpok 17y ago
        Which is different (entirely) from what the article was saying. It listed off several things which current languages do. What (someone) up the chain was saying was exactly that. Lisp is interesting because of those things that it alone does. Not because it is capable of things that other languages do.

apu 17y ago

Because awesome is usually used in a relative sense -- something is awesome compared to other stuff. The implicit other stuff is "everything else."

lispm 17y ago
You are making that up. Awesome is a description like 'green'. Yesterday we saw an awesome game. The sound of the new stereo is awesome. The view from that skyscraper is awesome. If I compare something I'd say: Yesterday I saw the most awesome game. etc.
- justinhj 17y ago
  Not really. Inspiring awe is a property based on when you see it. If you could demo an iphone to someone in 1970 it would be awesome; if you demo it to someone in 2015 it would be an old iphone. Green is forever.
  - lispm 17y ago
    a Porsche from 1970 is still awesome. There are many things that have timeless qualities. Every time I hear 'The Man Machine' from Kraftwerk I think how awesome it is. 'The Grand Canyon is awesome' - how does that depend on WHEN I see it. As long as there is a Grand Canyon, it is awesome. It is of no concern if there are things less or more awesome. The Grand Canyon is just 'awesome'. Lisp has for some people also timeless qualities. One of these people is Alan Kay (of Smalltalk, Dynabook, etc.) fame. Check some day what Alan thinks about Lisp: http://bc.tech.coop/blog/060224.html http://bc.tech.coop/blog/060224.html "Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance of Lisp. Lisp is the most important idea in computer science."
    - blasdel 17y ago
      I can not think of a more clearly terrible example than Geology! The Grand Canyon is in no way exempt from time -- millions of years ago it was just another unremarkable course of the Colorado River, and millions of years from now it will have eroded to nothingness. The Himalayas used to be an unremarkable coastline, and the Appalachians hills were once taller than Everest is now.
      - lispm 17y ago
        Awesome is an impression by a person that makes an observation. Millions ago the earth had no Grand Canyon (and thus could not be observed) and millions years ago there were no observers that could be impressed by something. As long as there is a GRAND CANYON (a label for an observable geological feature given by man) the GRAND CANYON will be awesome. Your father found the Grand Canyon awesome and and your children will find it awesome, too. For us humans the Grand Canyon, as long it is there and as long we are there, is 'awesome'. 'Awesome' is an impression that humans have of something. It has nothing to do with geological timescales.
        jodrellblank 17y ago
        Unless there is an atomic spaceship war in a hundred years which scars the earth with canyons that size every few hundred miles. Then our grand children will not find "the Grand Canyon" awesome, they will find it "just another of those huge canyons that are everywhere and really boring". Redwoods are awesome trees because of their size. If all other trees died out and Redwoods were the only tree, they wouldn't be awesome, they would be "normal tree size". Unless you are high you don't go around being awe inspired by everyday things. Awesome is implicitly comparing with "everything else". Different things aren't awesome, but awesome things are different - but only while they are different. > a Porsche from 1970 is still awesome Not to me. A Veyron, now that's awesome. Spitfires are awesome, but only anachronistically - for their time and their reputation at the time - they don't hold a candle to a modern fighter.
        lispm 17y ago
  - lispm 17y ago
    http://www.porsche.com/germany/sportandevents/motorsport/history/racingcars/70ies/1970-gulf917-4-9kurzheckcoupe/ http://www.porsche.com/germany/sportandevents/motorsport/his... http://www.ausmotive.com/2009/03/20/porsche-917-celebrates-40th-birthday.html http://www.ausmotive.com/2009/03/20/porsche-917-celebrates-4... You would not find that Porsche 917 from 1970 awesome? http://www.ausmotive.com/images/Porsche-917-01.jpg http://www.ausmotive.com/images/Porsche-917-01.jpg
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  First time I went to New Mexico I saw some Kachini dolls. They looked, well, awesome. After a few days or so, I saw many, many more Kachina dolls, such that I could start seeing differences in quality. Those first ones I saw? They really weren't all that awesome. They were actually sort of crappy, once I saw some truly awesome handiwork. Whether or not something inspires awe really does depend on previous experience.
  - lispm 17y ago
    how are the Niagara falls less awesome on the 8.Jan 2010 compared to 7.Jan.2010?
    - likpok 17y ago
      You are misunderstanding his point. Lisp used to be awesome because it implemented feature X. That is, show people feature X in Lisp, and they would be impressed because nothing else did X. Now, everything does X. Showing someone Lisp doing X will get the response of 'So what?'. Therefore, Lisp is no longer awesome because of feature X.
      - lispm 17y ago
        You are misunderstanding the original point. Lisp has certain qualities that are rare, designed in a special way and work together in special ways. Almost none of the mainstream scripting languages uses simple code as data as Lisp does. Not Ruby. Not Python. Not PHP. Not JavaScript. None of them have the roots in a meta-circular interpreter that fits on a page. http://arcfn.com/2008/07/maxwells-equations-of-software-examined.html http://arcfn.com/2008/07/maxwells-equations-of-software-exam... None of those allow me to write symbolic computations in a simple and straight forward way like I can do it in Lisp. I find that awesome.
        likpok 17y ago
        Which is different (entirely) from what the article was saying. It listed off several things which current languages do. What (someone) up the chain was saying was exactly that. Lisp is interesting because of those things that it alone does. Not because it is capable of things that other languages do.