4 ms·

"The situation is particularly ironic because the argument that has been advanced for discarding Lisp in favor of C++ (and now for Java) is that JPL should use

by logjam 18y ago

"The situation is particularly ironic because the argument that has been advanced for discarding Lisp in favor of C++ (and now for Java) is that JPL should use "industry best practice." The problem with this argument is twofold: first, we're confusing best practice with standard practice. The two are not the same." To me, this is the crux. We have this ridiculous idea that "industry" drives technological advance. Industry software "engineers" trained up in trade schools or worse, without any awareness that they are reimplementing solutions (poorly) to problems that were solved decades ago...and we get...horrible industrial monstrosities like Java (and Microsoft Windows) roaming the earth, while remote diamonds like Lisp and Scheme shine kindly down.

silentbicycle 18y ago
"Come on, dude. You can't argue with best practices. They're the best!" Which is the problem, I think. Their name just screams, "Quit arguing, they know better." (for increasingly nebulous values of 'they'). Aside from trying to undermine the term as a brand ("Best Practices: Because Embracing Mediocrity Looks Good On Paper"), what can you do?
DaniFong 18y ago
Java wasn't that crazy. The basic idea of using Java for the web seemed a sane one: the only other alternative was to do something like XWindows. And then what? Are people going to use web browsers like XWindows clients? That would never fly! (oh wait)
briancooley 18y ago
Industry software "engineers" trained up in trade schools or worse, without any awareness that they are reimplementing solutions (poorly) to problems that were solved decades ago...and we get...horrible industrial monstrosities like Java Since Guy Steele coauthored both the Lambda Papers (late 1970's) and the first three editions of the Java specification, I don't think that you can successfully argue that awareness of anything solved by Lisp or Scheme was a problem in the development of Java. I always got the impression that the goal with Java was to make bad programmers better, not to create the ultimate language (e.g., see http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/17/halfway_between_the_gutter_and_the_stars/ http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/17/halfway_between_the_...) To use a golf analogy, consider cavity back irons. The average golfer, who struggles to hit it straight, will likely play a lot better with cavity backs. But a really good golfer won't be able to shape shots easily and will feel hamstrung without his blades.
- tjr 18y ago
  I always got the impression that the goal with Java was to make bad programmers better, not to create the ultimate language And you would be correct... http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04045.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m...

by logjam 18y ago

silentbicycle 18y ago

"Come on, dude. You can't argue with best practices. They're the best!" Which is the problem, I think. Their name just screams, "Quit arguing, they know better." (for increasingly nebulous values of 'they'). Aside from trying to undermine the term as a brand ("Best Practices: Because Embracing Mediocrity Looks Good On Paper"), what can you do?

DaniFong 18y ago

Java wasn't that crazy. The basic idea of using Java for the web seemed a sane one: the only other alternative was to do something like XWindows. And then what? Are people going to use web browsers like XWindows clients? That would never fly! (oh wait)

briancooley 18y ago

Industry software "engineers" trained up in trade schools or worse, without any awareness that they are reimplementing solutions (poorly) to problems that were solved decades ago...and we get...horrible industrial monstrosities like Java Since Guy Steele coauthored both the Lambda Papers (late 1970's) and the first three editions of the Java specification, I don't think that you can successfully argue that awareness of anything solved by Lisp or Scheme was a problem in the development of Java. I always got the impression that the goal with Java was to make bad programmers better, not to create the ultimate language (e.g., see http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/17/halfway_between_the_gutter_and_the_stars/ http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/17/halfway_between_the_...) To use a golf analogy, consider cavity back irons. The average golfer, who struggles to hit it straight, will likely play a lot better with cavity backs. But a really good golfer won't be able to shape shots easily and will feel hamstrung without his blades.

tjr 18y ago
I always got the impression that the goal with Java was to make bad programmers better, not to create the ultimate language And you would be correct... http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04045.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m...