3 ms·

Code should be for everyone - not just a few ring-kissers who feel they have past a certain integrity threshold - or maybe better said, you think Lisp is some s

by tomlin 5y ago

Code should be for everyone - not just a few ring-kissers who feel they have past a certain integrity threshold - or maybe better said, you think Lisp is some sort of Master Sword that you pulled out of the rock - so therefore, it must be better. What does "nice to read" mean? It means that I don't spend another 2 hours falling over myself trying to convince 7 year olds why being decisively pedantic is better than more expressive, semantic code. You're still caught up in the idea that coding and programming is for an elite group of people, and that perspective is boring and old.

askonomm 5y ago
That's a pretty weird approach to take imo. So you see the world through the lens of a 7 year-old? So we should not teach anyone advanced math either because a 7 year-old wouldn't understand it? Perhaps people shouldn't drive a car, because a 7 year-old wouldn't know how! Listen, I can learn and write about whatever programming languages I like, without having to once think about you or the children you teach. You can label me elitist, you can label me however you like, but as a teacher you have a funny way to suppress people's ability to share knowledge on the basis that you or your children don't understand it. Shouldn't you as a teacher be happy that people are sharing knowledge on a wide variety of things? And yet you choose to call languages ugly, hard to read, and shame people for sharing knowledge because it isn't in your beloved programming language. And you call me elitist?
- tomlin 5y ago
  It's not shaming to say a language is ugly. Languages - like art - are open to subjectivity. You're arguing for objectivity towards Lisp/ClojureScript - so yes, you are acting in an elitist way. Should I encourage children to learn eye for an eye, simply because that's a way of thinking? Or would I be better to give them tools that make their world easier to comprehend and think for themselves? It's funny you brought up math - because children learn math at very early ages, and they progressively grow to understand more complicated math as they are able. The entire time the child is learning math, though. Math is the most basic instruction set that is used to count sides of a shape - all the way up to complicated thought experiments involving quantum mechanics. It is a semantic language that not only doesn't require a manual, it doesn't even require a theological conversation to apprehend it. So much so that when we attempt to communicate with life outside of our solar system, we use math to communicate with them. Why do scientists chose math over latin, or Russian? Because chosing a nationalist language would be dumb. Why would I chose to teach a language that obfuscates readability? Seems dumb.
boondaburrah 5y ago
So because you believe that one group of people can't learn a particular language, nobody should be allowed to post using that language on the internet? I both have been taught racket and taught racket myself in schools, and at no point was coding presented as 'only for elites.' I'm not sure why you hate lisp-like languages so much and can't accept that it's actually more comfortable for some people. I'm sorry if you were hit with one too many "lisp is for a more civilized age" people. Coding is for everyone, no?

by tomlin 5y ago

askonomm 5y ago

That's a pretty weird approach to take imo. So you see the world through the lens of a 7 year-old? So we should not teach anyone advanced math either because a 7 year-old wouldn't understand it? Perhaps people shouldn't drive a car, because a 7 year-old wouldn't know how! Listen, I can learn and write about whatever programming languages I like, without having to once think about you or the children you teach. You can label me elitist, you can label me however you like, but as a teacher you have a funny way to suppress people's ability to share knowledge on the basis that you or your children don't understand it. Shouldn't you as a teacher be happy that people are sharing knowledge on a wide variety of things? And yet you choose to call languages ugly, hard to read, and shame people for sharing knowledge because it isn't in your beloved programming language. And you call me elitist?

tomlin 5y ago
It's not shaming to say a language is ugly. Languages - like art - are open to subjectivity. You're arguing for objectivity towards Lisp/ClojureScript - so yes, you are acting in an elitist way. Should I encourage children to learn eye for an eye, simply because that's a way of thinking? Or would I be better to give them tools that make their world easier to comprehend and think for themselves? It's funny you brought up math - because children learn math at very early ages, and they progressively grow to understand more complicated math as they are able. The entire time the child is learning math, though. Math is the most basic instruction set that is used to count sides of a shape - all the way up to complicated thought experiments involving quantum mechanics. It is a semantic language that not only doesn't require a manual, it doesn't even require a theological conversation to apprehend it. So much so that when we attempt to communicate with life outside of our solar system, we use math to communicate with them. Why do scientists chose math over latin, or Russian? Because chosing a nationalist language would be dumb. Why would I chose to teach a language that obfuscates readability? Seems dumb.

boondaburrah 5y ago

So because you believe that one group of people can't learn a particular language, nobody should be allowed to post using that language on the internet? I both have been taught racket and taught racket myself in schools, and at no point was coding presented as 'only for elites.' I'm not sure why you hate lisp-like languages so much and can't accept that it's actually more comfortable for some people. I'm sorry if you were hit with one too many "lisp is for a more civilized age" people. Coding is for everyone, no?