3 ms·

That would make sense, if C# was more powerful/expressive than Python, Lisp or the like. It's not; it's just the least sucky (language-wise) of the mainstream s

That would make sense, if C# was more powerful/expressive than Python, Lisp or the like. It's not; it's just the least sucky (language-wise) of the mainstream statically typed languages. Plus it has all the .NET libraries and works well on Windows (naturally), which are reasons why people choose (or are forced) to use it. Not because it's the epitome of power and flexibility...

SamReidHughes 16y ago
> That would make sense, if C# was more powerful/expressive than Python, Lisp or the like. What? My comment makes sense, even if C# is worse than Python, etc.
- zephyrfalcon 16y ago
  To quote the relevant parts from [http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html]: "As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub." The "paradox" (or "fallacy", as you called it) here refers to looking at a language that is more powerful, but not realizing that it is. By contrast, when looking at a language that is less powerful, this is usually obvious.
  - SamReidHughes 16y ago
    My interpretation of the definition is that it's about being unable to recognize the benefits of something you're unfamiliar with. > By contrast, when looking at a language that is less powerful, this is usually obvious. You mean like how when I look at Python, its deficiencies relative to C# are obvious? Or are you talking about how when you look at C#, its deficiencies relative to Python are obvious? The blub paradox goes both ways.

SamReidHughes 16y ago

> That would make sense, if C# was more powerful/expressive than Python, Lisp or the like. What? My comment makes sense, even if C# is worse than Python, etc.

zephyrfalcon 16y ago
To quote the relevant parts from [http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html]: "As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub." The "paradox" (or "fallacy", as you called it) here refers to looking at a language that is more powerful, but not realizing that it is. By contrast, when looking at a language that is less powerful, this is usually obvious.
- SamReidHughes 16y ago
  My interpretation of the definition is that it's about being unable to recognize the benefits of something you're unfamiliar with. > By contrast, when looking at a language that is less powerful, this is usually obvious. You mean like how when I look at Python, its deficiencies relative to C# are obvious? Or are you talking about how when you look at C#, its deficiencies relative to Python are obvious? The blub paradox goes both ways.