4 ms·

This is not about using lambdas everywhere all the time. This is about recognizing that those who create programming languages are not omniscient. I'm not sure

This is not about using lambdas everywhere all the time. This is about recognizing that those who create programming languages are not omniscient. I'm not sure why you're so adamant about misrepresenting my point.

DamonHD 9y ago
Wow, I can have an opinion without having an ulterior motive to do you down in some way! Your point (I take it that you wrote the linked Quora item then) seemed to be that the language in question was obviously sub-par because it didn't support multi-line lambdas. Which I repeat that I believe to be (a) a false assertion and (b) belligerently expressed. If you meant something else then it wasn't clear to me and I may have misunderstood, but I'm not 'misrepresenting' you or voting you down or any such thing. I can tell that you happen to have a (strong) opinion. I happen not to agree with your apparent opinion nor with your way of expressing it. But you may yet be right and I wrong, for example.
eesmith 9y ago
This isn't about recognizing omniscience not. This is about bad-mouthing someone who wrote a programming language that doesn't support multi-line lambdas. (Bad-mouthing: "not at this level of of programming", "This is a really huge problem because only 25% of people are capable of thinking for themselves", with the implication that van Rossum cannot think for himself.) Explicit in there is the view that one must program with multi-line lambdas in order to be at a higher level of programming competency. A view I disagree with. Your account name is appropriate as this is sort of smug attitude seems common among Lisp fans. I think they see Lisp (or Scheme) as a jewel of a language, but feel themselves in the doldrums of the programming world. They can't figure out why others aren't using it, and decide that others must simply be sheep. That's bad-mouthing as well.

DamonHD 9y ago

Wow, I can have an opinion without having an ulterior motive to do you down in some way! Your point (I take it that you wrote the linked Quora item then) seemed to be that the language in question was obviously sub-par because it didn't support multi-line lambdas. Which I repeat that I believe to be (a) a false assertion and (b) belligerently expressed. If you meant something else then it wasn't clear to me and I may have misunderstood, but I'm not 'misrepresenting' you or voting you down or any such thing. I can tell that you happen to have a (strong) opinion. I happen not to agree with your apparent opinion nor with your way of expressing it. But you may yet be right and I wrong, for example.

eesmith 9y ago

This isn't about recognizing omniscience not. This is about bad-mouthing someone who wrote a programming language that doesn't support multi-line lambdas. (Bad-mouthing: "not at this level of of programming", "This is a really huge problem because only 25% of people are capable of thinking for themselves", with the implication that van Rossum cannot think for himself.) Explicit in there is the view that one must program with multi-line lambdas in order to be at a higher level of programming competency. A view I disagree with. Your account name is appropriate as this is sort of smug attitude seems common among Lisp fans. I think they see Lisp (or Scheme) as a jewel of a language, but feel themselves in the doldrums of the programming world. They can't figure out why others aren't using it, and decide that others must simply be sheep. That's bad-mouthing as well.