3 ms·
Your response is predictable and completely devoid of new ideas in addition to not being funny. I don't think it was even worth 4 but you've got over 30. What
by Goladus 16y ago
Your response is predictable and completely devoid of new ideas in addition to not being funny. I don't think it was even worth 4 but you've got over 30. Whatever. That's the way the system works.
The three sample article titles you offer are not even analogous to the original post. Yegge's title is a humorous re-working of the phrase "nobody gives a shit about Haskell," the subject of the article. Your suggestions are analogous to half-assed critiques of the language itself.
And again, they weren't funny. For example, instead of "LISP: It Would Be a Lot More Useful Without All the Parentheses" try something like:
* Scheme is an exotic sports car. Fast. Manual transmission. No radio.
* Emacs Lisp is a 1984 Subaru GL 4WD: "the car that's always in front of you."
* Common Lisp is Howl's Moving Castle.
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/11/ejacs-javascript-interpreter-for-emacs.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/11/ejacs-javascript-int...
- jmillikin 16y agoMy response was not supposed to be funny; it's a critique of an uninformed article. None of your title suggestions match mine, because yours are true. Scheme is simple and no-frills; elisp is outdated and utilitarian. Common Lisp is...well, it's not Japanese, so he's lost me there. But implying that Haskell is unsuited or unused for industrial purposes is absurd; most major Haskell libraries are written for companies, the main compilers are developed by companies, most papers are about solving some particular industrial problem, etc. Yegge's article might as well be about how nobody uses Erlang or Forth, it would make equally little sense. Hell, the industry Yegge specifically calls out (finance) is known to use Haskell more than usual; Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, and Credit Suisse especially. Barclays even released a paper detailing their experiences!