4 ms·

I wouldn't use a programming language whose designer had this attitude.

by 13415 7y ago

jwr 7y ago
Would you also refuse to play a musical instrument, because the designers had this attitude? Pretty much all musical instruments are "hard to play" and you have to learn them, sometimes for many years.
- kazinator 7y ago
  Professional grade, expensive instruments are highly playable compared to the junk.
fnordsensei 7y ago
This has been debated endlessly with regards to Clojure, sometimes with what seems like deliberate misunderstandings stemming from categorical thinking or entrenched positions. It's not a binary choice for the most part. - Ease of use will not be promoted over long term growth or power (I.e., the instrument should be designed such that it can ideally facilitate indefinite growth of skill. It shouldn't be a toy that only works up to a certain point.) - Very often, ease of use can be optimised in such a way that it does not conflict with the first point, rendering the entire discussion moot. - Familiarity is a non-goal unless the familiar design has the same properties as the optimal design, with regards to the first point. This is not to say that easier, beginner friendly designs that _does_ sacrifice the long term power or growth aren't valuable. It's a different design goal, though.
Retra 7y ago
And I wouldn't use a programming language whose designer didn't have this attitude. I also wouldn't use a programming language that is optimized for increasing the number of users at the expense of performance, clarity, stability, consistency, or power. I don't want a language that appeals to most people, I want one that disproportionately appeals to careful and competent people.
jodrellblank 7y ago
Erik Naggum, Comp.Lang.Lisp, 1997: "what makes _me_ sad is the focus on "most folks" and "Joe Sixpack". why are we even _thinking_ about home computer equipment when we wish to attract professional programmers? in _every_ field I know, the difference between the professional and the mass market is so large that Joe Blow wouldn't believe the two could coexist. more often than not, you can't even get the professional quality unless you sign a major agreement with the vendor -- such is the investment on both sides of the table. the commitment for over-the-counter sales to some anonymous customer is _negligible_. consumers are protected by laws because of this, while professionals are protected by signed agreements they are expected to understand. the software industry should surely be no different. (except, of course, that software consumers are denied every consumer right they have had recognized in any other field.) Microsoft and its ilk has done a marvelous job at marketing their software in the mass market so that non-professional programmers pick them up and non-programmers who decide where the money should be wasted will get a warm fuzzy feeling from certain brand names. I mean, they _must_ recognize that nothing else they buy for their company is advertised in the newspapers that morning and they aren't swayed by consumer ads when they buy office or plant equipment, are they? so _why_ do they swallow this nonsense from the mass-marketing guys hook, line, and sinker? they don't make poles long enough for me want to touch Microsoft products, and I don't want any mass-marketed game-playing device or Windows appliance _near_ my desk or on my network. this is my _workbench_, dammit, it's not a pretty box to impress people with graphics and sounds. when I work at this system up to 12 hours a day, I'm profoundly uninterested in what user interface a novice user would prefer. I'm reminded of the response to how people of little or no imagination were complaining about science fiction and incredibly expensive space programs: "the meek can _have_ the earth -- we have other plans". no, this is not elitist, like some would like to believe in order to avoid thinking about the issues. this is just calling attention to the line between amateurs and professionals, between consumers and producers, that is already there in _every_ field. I want people to wake up to this difference and _reject_ the consumer ads when they look for professional tools. if it's marketed to tens of millions of people, it is _not_ for the professional programmer, and not for you. if its main selling point is novice-friendliness, ignore it unless you _are_ a novice. (and if you are a novice trying to sell your services in a professional market, get the hell out of the way.) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/HCMKebW4ovA%5B26-50%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/HCMKe...

I wouldn't use a programming language whose designer had this attitude.

by 13415 7y ago

I wouldn't use a programming language whose designer had this attitude.

jwr 7y ago

Would you also refuse to play a musical instrument, because the designers had this attitude? Pretty much all musical instruments are "hard to play" and you have to learn them, sometimes for many years.

kazinator 7y ago
Professional grade, expensive instruments are highly playable compared to the junk.

fnordsensei 7y ago

This has been debated endlessly with regards to Clojure, sometimes with what seems like deliberate misunderstandings stemming from categorical thinking or entrenched positions. It's not a binary choice for the most part. - Ease of use will not be promoted over long term growth or power (I.e., the instrument should be designed such that it can ideally facilitate indefinite growth of skill. It shouldn't be a toy that only works up to a certain point.) - Very often, ease of use can be optimised in such a way that it does not conflict with the first point, rendering the entire discussion moot. - Familiarity is a non-goal unless the familiar design has the same properties as the optimal design, with regards to the first point. This is not to say that easier, beginner friendly designs that _does_ sacrifice the long term power or growth aren't valuable. It's a different design goal, though.

Retra 7y ago

And I wouldn't use a programming language whose designer didn't have this attitude. I also wouldn't use a programming language that is optimized for increasing the number of users at the expense of performance, clarity, stability, consistency, or power. I don't want a language that appeals to most people, I want one that disproportionately appeals to careful and competent people.

jodrellblank 7y ago

Erik Naggum, Comp.Lang.Lisp, 1997: "what makes _me_ sad is the focus on "most folks" and "Joe Sixpack". why are we even _thinking_ about home computer equipment when we wish to attract professional programmers? in _every_ field I know, the difference between the professional and the mass market is so large that Joe Blow wouldn't believe the two could coexist. more often than not, you can't even get the professional quality unless you sign a major agreement with the vendor -- such is the investment on both sides of the table. the commitment for over-the-counter sales to some anonymous customer is _negligible_. consumers are protected by laws because of this, while professionals are protected by signed agreements they are expected to understand. the software industry should surely be no different. (except, of course, that software consumers are denied every consumer right they have had recognized in any other field.) Microsoft and its ilk has done a marvelous job at marketing their software in the mass market so that non-professional programmers pick them up and non-programmers who decide where the money should be wasted will get a warm fuzzy feeling from certain brand names. I mean, they _must_ recognize that nothing else they buy for their company is advertised in the newspapers that morning and they aren't swayed by consumer ads when they buy office or plant equipment, are they? so _why_ do they swallow this nonsense from the mass-marketing guys hook, line, and sinker? they don't make poles long enough for me want to touch Microsoft products, and I don't want any mass-marketed game-playing device or Windows appliance _near_ my desk or on my network. this is my _workbench_, dammit, it's not a pretty box to impress people with graphics and sounds. when I work at this system up to 12 hours a day, I'm profoundly uninterested in what user interface a novice user would prefer. I'm reminded of the response to how people of little or no imagination were complaining about science fiction and incredibly expensive space programs: "the meek can _have_ the earth -- we have other plans". no, this is not elitist, like some would like to believe in order to avoid thinking about the issues. this is just calling attention to the line between amateurs and professionals, between consumers and producers, that is already there in _every_ field. I want people to wake up to this difference and _reject_ the consumer ads when they look for professional tools. if it's marketed to tens of millions of people, it is _not_ for the professional programmer, and not for you. if its main selling point is novice-friendliness, ignore it unless you _are_ a novice. (and if you are a novice trying to sell your services in a professional market, get the hell out of the way.) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/HCMKebW4ovA%5B26-50%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/HCMKe...