5 ms·

Only a relatively few amount of programmers have programmed in non-Algol syntax in-anger, rather than the reverse. How can you weigh up the pro or con of a syn

by yw3410 6y ago

Only a relatively few amount of programmers have programmed in non-Algol syntax in-anger, rather than the reverse. How can you weigh up the pro or con of a syntax when you haven't used it much? I couldn't tell you whether APL syntax was any good.

cageface 6y ago
I know quite a few really brilliant programmers that were exposed to scheme or lisp in school but prefer other languages for various reasons in their professional work.
- yw3410 6y ago
  Does programming in-school really count as programming in anger? I did a module on C++ at university but I'm not equipped to evaluate it.
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    No offence but it sounds as if you are invoking a “True Scotsman” argument here? Also (using your argument) how do you know LISP is better than C++ when you haven’t programmed C++ “in anger”?
    - kazinator 6y ago
      "[N]ot equipped to evaluate [C++]" clearly means that yw3410 doesn't know whether Lisp is better or worse than C++.
mbrodersen 6y ago
I have tried really hard to fall in love with LISP style languages. This includes implementing my own LISP interpreters/compilers just for fun. I also know enough Haskell (and Idris) to compare LISP style languages with the “opposite” end of the functional language spectrum. And I an the maintainer of a high performance functional programming language at work. In the end I still end up never reaching for LISP or Clojure when solving real world programming challenges. The key reason is that I am more productive with strong types. The same reason why I initially loved Ruby and then stopped using it the moment I tried to build anything bigger with it. I realise that not having types makes some people happy. That’s great. It just doesn’t make me happy.
- yw3410 6y ago
  Whoa, this was a point about syntax (non-Algol vs. Algol) being overstated. Haskell and Idris absolutely fall in non-Algol languages that make people do a double-take. For the record I like lots of languages - dependent types are awesome. I find that the language I reach for will mostly be a function of the problem space. Just an FYI, certain Lisps have static typing as well.

by yw3410 6y ago

cageface 6y ago

I know quite a few really brilliant programmers that were exposed to scheme or lisp in school but prefer other languages for various reasons in their professional work.

yw3410 6y ago
Does programming in-school really count as programming in anger? I did a module on C++ at university but I'm not equipped to evaluate it.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  No offence but it sounds as if you are invoking a “True Scotsman” argument here? Also (using your argument) how do you know LISP is better than C++ when you haven’t programmed C++ “in anger”?
  - kazinator 6y ago
    "[N]ot equipped to evaluate [C++]" clearly means that yw3410 doesn't know whether Lisp is better or worse than C++.

mbrodersen 6y ago

I have tried really hard to fall in love with LISP style languages. This includes implementing my own LISP interpreters/compilers just for fun. I also know enough Haskell (and Idris) to compare LISP style languages with the “opposite” end of the functional language spectrum. And I an the maintainer of a high performance functional programming language at work. In the end I still end up never reaching for LISP or Clojure when solving real world programming challenges. The key reason is that I am more productive with strong types. The same reason why I initially loved Ruby and then stopped using it the moment I tried to build anything bigger with it. I realise that not having types makes some people happy. That’s great. It just doesn’t make me happy.

yw3410 6y ago
Whoa, this was a point about syntax (non-Algol vs. Algol) being overstated. Haskell and Idris absolutely fall in non-Algol languages that make people do a double-take. For the record I like lots of languages - dependent types are awesome. I find that the language I reach for will mostly be a function of the problem space. Just an FYI, certain Lisps have static typing as well.