4 ms·

> The essay says that Lisp is at the top of the power curve. Lisp programmers, looking at Haskell, are sure that they are looking down. The article never menti

by ken 8y ago

> The essay says that Lisp is at the top of the power curve. Lisp programmers, looking at Haskell, are sure that they are looking down. The article never mentions Haskell, or any similar language. It compares Cobol and Python, and it compares Perl 4 and Perl 5. It never compares two languages where people on both sides think they're on the more powerful side. > What's wrong is the idea that languages can be placed on a one-dimensional axis labeled "power". That idea is mistaken. It's also not in the essay. It says: "Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top; it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at least a partial order." > The essay says that Lisp is at the top of the power curve. True, but he carefully prefixes it with "Where they fall relative to one another is a sensitive topic." Along with the lattice comment, he leaves plenty of room for other languages to also be "at the top". > High performance computing (or, as the article says, games)? I might need something that gives me control of memory layout. This is addressed in the essay, too: "When you're writing desktop software, there's a strong bias toward writing applications in the same language as the operating system."

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> > The essay says that Lisp is at the top of the power curve. Lisp programmers, looking at Haskell, are sure that they are looking down. > The article never mentions Haskell, or any similar language. It compares Cobol and Python, and it compares Perl 4 and Perl 5. It never compares two languages where people on both sides think they're on the more powerful side. That's because the article doesn't think that can happen. I think it can, and I give an example. > > What's wrong is the idea that languages can be placed on a one-dimensional axis labeled "power". That idea is mistaken. > It's also not in the essay. It says: "Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top; it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at least a partial order." I fail to see how being a lattice allows there to be two elements where each is greater than the other. My criticism doesn't depend on partial vs. strict ordering; it depends on only one axis vs. multiple axes. Note that with multiple axes, you can't do even a partial order without imposing some outside criterion. > > High performance computing (or, as the article says, games)? I might need something that gives me control of memory layout. > This is addressed in the essay, too: "When you're writing desktop software, there's a strong bias toward writing applications in the same language as the operating system." While games can be desktop software, high performance computing usually isn't.
- ken 8y ago
  > That's because the article doesn't think that can happen. I don't see what else he could mean by "lattice" or "partial ordering", except an admission that this can and does happen. Help me understand. > I fail to see how being a lattice allows there to be two elements where each is greater than the other. My criticism doesn't depend on partial vs. strict ordering Isn't that exactly what a lattice allows? The absolute ordering of Lisp and Haskell is undefined, while both are greater than some (like Cobol), and probably less than others. Users of either might think theirs is greater, but each has features the other doesn't, which is what makes the ordering merely partial.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    If I understand correctly, a lattice or partial ordering means that A = B is possible for different A and B, but if A < B, then "B < A" is false. But even if I'm wrong about a lattice, my claim is still true for programming languages. Perl > Haskell... for certain situations. Even assembly > Lisp... for certain situations. And yet assembly and Lisp are so far apart on the "power curve" that, if Lisp is not > assembly always, then... do we have any kind of ordering at all? I view programming languages as being a tree, with branches spreading in all different directions. Some languages reach further in certain directions than other languages do. Your program is a vector. (Really, it's a bunch of different vectors, of different lengths, pointing in different directions, but one direction is the problem that makes it the hardest to write the program that you're trying to write.) Pick the language that reaches the farthest in the direction of whatever makes it hard to write the program that you're trying to write. This means that your problem imposes an order on languages... for that problem. It's not a universal order, though. Others, with a different kind of problem, may view your order as completely wrong. And they are right - for their problem, your order is in fact wrong.
    - thisiszilff 8y ago
      You are thinking of a total order (in fact total orderings or often defined with the '>=' relation). A partial order is like a total order except there may be some elements that are not comparable, so given elements {A, B, C} we can have C < A and C < B but whether A < B or B < A can remain undefined. A lattice is a kind of partially ordered set.
mannykannot 8y ago
> It never compares two languages where people on both sides think they're on the more powerful side. Which is precisely why adding Haskell into the mix is a useful extension of the discussion.

by ken 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

> > The essay says that Lisp is at the top of the power curve. Lisp programmers, looking at Haskell, are sure that they are looking down. > The article never mentions Haskell, or any similar language. It compares Cobol and Python, and it compares Perl 4 and Perl 5. It never compares two languages where people on both sides think they're on the more powerful side. That's because the article doesn't think that can happen. I think it can, and I give an example. > > What's wrong is the idea that languages can be placed on a one-dimensional axis labeled "power". That idea is mistaken. > It's also not in the essay. It says: "Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top; it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at least a partial order." I fail to see how being a lattice allows there to be two elements where each is greater than the other. My criticism doesn't depend on partial vs. strict ordering; it depends on only one axis vs. multiple axes. Note that with multiple axes, you can't do even a partial order without imposing some outside criterion. > > High performance computing (or, as the article says, games)? I might need something that gives me control of memory layout. > This is addressed in the essay, too: "When you're writing desktop software, there's a strong bias toward writing applications in the same language as the operating system." While games can be desktop software, high performance computing usually isn't.

ken 8y ago
> That's because the article doesn't think that can happen. I don't see what else he could mean by "lattice" or "partial ordering", except an admission that this can and does happen. Help me understand. > I fail to see how being a lattice allows there to be two elements where each is greater than the other. My criticism doesn't depend on partial vs. strict ordering Isn't that exactly what a lattice allows? The absolute ordering of Lisp and Haskell is undefined, while both are greater than some (like Cobol), and probably less than others. Users of either might think theirs is greater, but each has features the other doesn't, which is what makes the ordering merely partial.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  If I understand correctly, a lattice or partial ordering means that A = B is possible for different A and B, but if A < B, then "B < A" is false. But even if I'm wrong about a lattice, my claim is still true for programming languages. Perl > Haskell... for certain situations. Even assembly > Lisp... for certain situations. And yet assembly and Lisp are so far apart on the "power curve" that, if Lisp is not > assembly always, then... do we have any kind of ordering at all? I view programming languages as being a tree, with branches spreading in all different directions. Some languages reach further in certain directions than other languages do. Your program is a vector. (Really, it's a bunch of different vectors, of different lengths, pointing in different directions, but one direction is the problem that makes it the hardest to write the program that you're trying to write.) Pick the language that reaches the farthest in the direction of whatever makes it hard to write the program that you're trying to write. This means that your problem imposes an order on languages... for that problem. It's not a universal order, though. Others, with a different kind of problem, may view your order as completely wrong. And they are right - for their problem, your order is in fact wrong.
  - thisiszilff 8y ago
    You are thinking of a total order (in fact total orderings or often defined with the '>=' relation). A partial order is like a total order except there may be some elements that are not comparable, so given elements {A, B, C} we can have C < A and C < B but whether A < B or B < A can remain undefined. A lattice is a kind of partially ordered set.

mannykannot 8y ago

> It never compares two languages where people on both sides think they're on the more powerful side. Which is precisely why adding Haskell into the mix is a useful extension of the discussion.