4 ms·

I disagree with your position that a language is good or not based on how people appreciate or use it. You're trying to tell me garbage such as PHP is one of t

I disagree with your position that a language is good or not based on how people appreciate or use it. You're trying to tell me garbage such as PHP is one of the best languages there is, effectively. In any case, I can still find examples of these platforms. Emacs is such a platform. For that matter, StumpWM is a platform of sorts. A nice quality of Lisp is making any program extensible with it trivially. As for Ada, governments use it for critical systems and I can't tell you the particulars of those. They use Ada because people will die if the software fails, so they're seeking quality, not quantity. You're advocating for quantity, not quality. As for APL, you don't build platforms or such things in APL. If you don't see the beauty in APL, then that's your loss. They don't build platforms for others to build on, they build pillars to prove a point. First you claimed people don't build great programs in these languages, which I've shown is false, and now you're arguing that they build things, but not things someone can build on. You're conflating extensible software with quality software here. What actually happens with these languages is that a certain breed of highly opinionated but highly unproductive programmer gets lost in them, on their quest for a level of aesthetics or elegance or correctness that nobody but themselves actually values. That happens, less so with Ada, but why would that even be a bad thing? Is it wrong for someone to spend time working on what they view as an ideal and finished program, rather than just writing something that's already been done and requires little thought or effort on their part? It's infinitely harder, I think, to write novel programs than it is to simply implement some specification or write a copy or something else. That's what I do with my work. I don't see why you'd look down on that. I'll let you've the last word, if you want it. I'm not interested in replying in this chain any further.

gridlockd 7y ago
> I disagree with your position that a language is good or not based on how people appreciate or use it. This is unsurprising. > You're trying to tell me garbage such as PHP is one of the best languages there is, effectively. I wouldn't go that far with PHP, it's only used in a certain (lucrative) niche and I can't think of anything great written in it. Python is a good language that grew organically much in the way that i described. > As for APL, you don't build platforms or such things in APL. If you don't see the beauty in APL, then that's your loss. It really isn't a net loss, because I consider the strive for beauty in a program a fool's errand. I get to write useful things in less time by foregoing that ideal. > In any case, I can still find examples of these platforms. Emacs is such a platform. Let's suppose that Emacs is a great program. Most languages that are not completely irrelevant have "that one thing" for people to point to. That's not enough. Furthermore, Emacs consists of about 25% of "ugly" C code. > For that matter, StumpWM is a platform of sorts. StumpWM? You're quickly running out of Steam here. > First you claimed people don't build great programs in these languages, which I've shown is false That's not my claim. My claim is "plenty of great programs" and "best-in-class tooling". A language like Lisp excludes best-in-class tooling or good performance by virtue of its design, so all programs that are written in it have a disadvantage right off the bat. Ada had some potential here, but it got stuck. I suppose it had something to do with too much of it being proprietary solutions. > You're conflating extensible software with quality software here. I don't mean "platform" in the sense of "program that I can extend". I'm talking about the ecosystem and tooling surrounding the language, its "commons", if you will. > Is it wrong for someone to spend time working on what they view as an ideal and finished program, rather than just writing something that's already been done and requires little thought or effort on their part? First of all, this is a false dichotomy. Secondly, a program that is ideal and finished but less useful is a poor trade-off. A program that is less ideal and unfinished but has better functionality as a result is, in my view, a better program. More importantly though is not just the one program, but all the programs that can or can not exist, based on the trade-offs you chose. If you just want to create pieces of art that the very few to appreciate, that's your prerogative. If instead you focus on usefulness however, you can create actual wealth, for yourself and for others. > It's infinitely harder, I think, to write novel programs... It is indeed, but it's much harder still to also make them ideal. > That's what I do with my work. I don't see why you'd look down on that. I don't look down on it. I just see nothing to look up to.

gridlockd 7y ago

> I disagree with your position that a language is good or not based on how people appreciate or use it. This is unsurprising. > You're trying to tell me garbage such as PHP is one of the best languages there is, effectively. I wouldn't go that far with PHP, it's only used in a certain (lucrative) niche and I can't think of anything great written in it. Python is a good language that grew organically much in the way that i described. > As for APL, you don't build platforms or such things in APL. If you don't see the beauty in APL, then that's your loss. It really isn't a net loss, because I consider the strive for beauty in a program a fool's errand. I get to write useful things in less time by foregoing that ideal. > In any case, I can still find examples of these platforms. Emacs is such a platform. Let's suppose that Emacs is a great program. Most languages that are not completely irrelevant have "that one thing" for people to point to. That's not enough. Furthermore, Emacs consists of about 25% of "ugly" C code. > For that matter, StumpWM is a platform of sorts. StumpWM? You're quickly running out of Steam here. > First you claimed people don't build great programs in these languages, which I've shown is false That's not my claim. My claim is "plenty of great programs" and "best-in-class tooling". A language like Lisp excludes best-in-class tooling or good performance by virtue of its design, so all programs that are written in it have a disadvantage right off the bat. Ada had some potential here, but it got stuck. I suppose it had something to do with too much of it being proprietary solutions. > You're conflating extensible software with quality software here. I don't mean "platform" in the sense of "program that I can extend". I'm talking about the ecosystem and tooling surrounding the language, its "commons", if you will. > Is it wrong for someone to spend time working on what they view as an ideal and finished program, rather than just writing something that's already been done and requires little thought or effort on their part? First of all, this is a false dichotomy. Secondly, a program that is ideal and finished but less useful is a poor trade-off. A program that is less ideal and unfinished but has better functionality as a result is, in my view, a better program. More importantly though is not just the one program, but all the programs that can or can not exist, based on the trade-offs you chose. If you just want to create pieces of art that the very few to appreciate, that's your prerogative. If instead you focus on usefulness however, you can create actual wealth, for yourself and for others. > It's infinitely harder, I think, to write novel programs... It is indeed, but it's much harder still to also make them ideal. > That's what I do with my work. I don't see why you'd look down on that. I don't look down on it. I just see nothing to look up to.