4 ms·

“Why is homoiconicity "very very important"?” I’ll take “What is parsimony?” for twenty, Alex. That said, I think “very very advantageous” would be more corre

by hhas01 6y ago

“Why is homoiconicity "very very important"?” I’ll take “What is parsimony?” for twenty, Alex. That said, I think “very very advantageous” would be more correct. If your language is a sprawling inconsistent mess of non-essential complexity, what chance of the systems built with that language being any better? And what chance of the language itself growing and evolving in future? Complexity kills progress. Forward movement finally grinds to a halt under its own impossible weight; at which point some genius will pronounce “Let’s abandon all that and start over completely afresh”, only to make the exact same foundational mistakes as the last time. Rinse-and-repeat ad nauseum for the illusion of progress without actually ever progressing anywhere. And so it goes. The only way to a maintain sustainable growth is to eliminate all non-essential complexity constantly and ruthlessly. You can either climb that ladder and discover where it goes, or forever sit on its bottom rung playing with yourself.

DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
You're actually proving my point. :) You never defined what it is that you mean by "homoiconicity", nor did you motivate why homoiconicity specifically is important or advantageous. You made, essentially, two points: - homoiconicity is "very very advantageous" - excessive, non-essential complexity will hinder progress eventually You did not argue that homoiconicity defeats complexity in any way, and you can't make such an argument without first defining what exactly you mean by "homoiconicity". Like I said, this has only proven my point: people like to argue in favor of homoiconicity without defining it sufficiently. Until someone comes up with an unambiguous definition that exactly fits all of their preconceived notions about the word, the word itself is absolutely useless. For further clarity: I was never arguing against any of the features that people often mean when they say "homoiconicity is important". Rather, I was arguing that the word "homoiconicity" is unimportant because nobody knows what it means. I have yet to find a truly great definition of the term that encompasses exactly all those languages people tend to feel are homoiconic and none of those that people feel aren't.
- hhas01 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428602

by hhas01 6y ago

DonaldPShimoda 6y ago

You're actually proving my point. :) You never defined what it is that you mean by "homoiconicity", nor did you motivate why homoiconicity specifically is important or advantageous. You made, essentially, two points: - homoiconicity is "very very advantageous" - excessive, non-essential complexity will hinder progress eventually You did not argue that homoiconicity defeats complexity in any way, and you can't make such an argument without first defining what exactly you mean by "homoiconicity". Like I said, this has only proven my point: people like to argue in favor of homoiconicity without defining it sufficiently. Until someone comes up with an unambiguous definition that exactly fits all of their preconceived notions about the word, the word itself is absolutely useless. For further clarity: I was never arguing against any of the features that people often mean when they say "homoiconicity is important". Rather, I was arguing that the word "homoiconicity" is unimportant because nobody knows what it means. I have yet to find a truly great definition of the term that encompasses exactly all those languages people tend to feel are homoiconic and none of those that people feel aren't.

hhas01 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428602