3 ms·
(cranky You know, we have the upvote arrow for things that excite you, and the “Go read something else and comment on it” feature for things that don’t float y
by raganwald 15y ago
(cranky
You know, we have the upvote arrow for things that excite you, and the “Go read something else and comment on it” feature for things that don’t float your boat.
Clearly this is not spam and it is not off-topic. So:
You asked the OP and/or your fellow HNers why they upvoted this onto the front page. I ask you, why this comment, what value does it add to my life to read about how smart and educated you are?
What about all the people who haven’t seen an implementation of McCarthy’s Lisp? Do they not deserve to find this interesting? Should they turn in their HN accounts and head over to reddit?
I wrote an implementation of Scheme in Java with macros, tail call optimization, lambda hoisting, a bunch of stuff. Yet I find this interesting. Is there something wrong with me?
)
- raganwald 15y agoRaganwald, you pretentious douche: > I wrote an implementation of Scheme in Java with macros, tail call optimization, lambda hoisting, a bunch of stuff. Greenspun’s Tenth Law is widely accepted, demonstrations of it in action add nothing of value to the programming community. Furthermore, writing a Scheme in Java is likely to be a project where you learned nothing of interest about Lisp or about Java. —signed, Nikolai Bourbaki
- apotheon 15y agoThat's kind of an inappropriate response. Pointing out one has implemented Scheme with all the bells and whistles as a condition in which the implementor is still interested in Lisp implementations and similar stuff is not a pretension or a statement that it was some kind of tremendous feat. I have a motorcycle, but I'm still interested in not only other motorcycles, but also bicycles. I don't think this makes me a pretentious douche.
- appamatto 15y agoMaybe he meant that his Java implementation of Scheme contains an ad-hoc implementation of Lisp.
- appamatto 15y agoMisapplication? I thought the Law was meant to describe accidental implementations of Lisp rather than overt ones. In other words, "the complicated system you made _just happens_ to contain a Lisp, and if you had noticed that requirement in the first place its design would have been cleaner."
- raganwald 15y agoI think you have captured the spirit of the law. The project in question was the development of a scripting language for something-or-other, so this wasn’t an accidental implementation of Lisp, it was done with malice aforethought.
- barrybe 15y agoWait.. why is raganwald replying to raganwald?