4 ms·

> Some people have a psychological or emotional reaction to code, similar to the way others do to poetry or prose, and sometimes the shape and structure of code

> Some people have a psychological or emotional reaction to code, similar to the way others do to poetry or prose, and sometimes the shape and structure of code gives people a sense of order and centeredness, in a similar way to OCD. The relative simplicity of Lisp compared to other languages probably makes these effects more acute. I would really dislike to work with such people in a professional setting. Can you imagine having PR with someone who thinks code should inspire an emotional response? You know what’s beautiful? Simple and effective things, even if you can’t fall in love with the way they look.

krapp 7y ago
I think it's less about believing code should inspire an emotional response (although what is "elegance" if not an aesthetic judgement) as being uncomfortable around code that doesn't inspire that response in yourself. For instance, Python developers' preference for significant whitespace, or the visceral disgust with which some regard javascript or OOP, go well beyond mere technical considerations.
mjburgess 7y ago
I think it would be hard to master programming without developing such an attachment -- emotion is what motivates people. You've become emotionally attached to the operation of the program, it seems, in being "simple and effective". I suppose then you have mastered, or are mastering, a kind of engineering. It isn't clear to me why working with you would be any more or less pleasant than the other kind of a person. Sometimes a master of one craft is needed to repair/supplement the oversights of another. Arguments you cause about the "efficiency" of some approach are no doubt a problem, and may injure the long-run intelligibility of the project. Those who master programming as such are the frontal lobes of teams who master engineering -- providing a global, planning, synthesizing, rationalizing perspective which keeps the program intelligible.
namelosw 7y ago
I guess you mean "easy" instead of "simple". "Simple" is very subjective and could be hard to achieve (so is "easy" though). In many objective aspects Lisp is much simpler than "professional" languages in terms of spec, model, symbol. Languages like Haskell traditionally considered "hard", but it also has a lot of simple aspects - For example, there's no variable in the first glance, only constant. And then it turns out there's even no constant because constant is zero parameter function. At last, almost everything is just a function including tuples which looks like a compiler primitive. Also, there's no such thing as multi-arity functions because there's currying. It eliminates most unnecessary concepts in order to achieve "simple", but it's infamous because it has a "hard" reputation among "professional" programmers. PS: Surprisingly, Scala's has a much shorter spec than Java, and Scala is one of the most attacked language for being bloated.

krapp 7y ago

I think it's less about believing code should inspire an emotional response (although what is "elegance" if not an aesthetic judgement) as being uncomfortable around code that doesn't inspire that response in yourself. For instance, Python developers' preference for significant whitespace, or the visceral disgust with which some regard javascript or OOP, go well beyond mere technical considerations.

mjburgess 7y ago

I think it would be hard to master programming without developing such an attachment -- emotion is what motivates people. You've become emotionally attached to the operation of the program, it seems, in being "simple and effective". I suppose then you have mastered, or are mastering, a kind of engineering. It isn't clear to me why working with you would be any more or less pleasant than the other kind of a person. Sometimes a master of one craft is needed to repair/supplement the oversights of another. Arguments you cause about the "efficiency" of some approach are no doubt a problem, and may injure the long-run intelligibility of the project. Those who master programming as such are the frontal lobes of teams who master engineering -- providing a global, planning, synthesizing, rationalizing perspective which keeps the program intelligible.

namelosw 7y ago

I guess you mean "easy" instead of "simple". "Simple" is very subjective and could be hard to achieve (so is "easy" though). In many objective aspects Lisp is much simpler than "professional" languages in terms of spec, model, symbol. Languages like Haskell traditionally considered "hard", but it also has a lot of simple aspects - For example, there's no variable in the first glance, only constant. And then it turns out there's even no constant because constant is zero parameter function. At last, almost everything is just a function including tuples which looks like a compiler primitive. Also, there's no such thing as multi-arity functions because there's currying. It eliminates most unnecessary concepts in order to achieve "simple", but it's infamous because it has a "hard" reputation among "professional" programmers. PS: Surprisingly, Scala's has a much shorter spec than Java, and Scala is one of the most attacked language for being bloated.