4 ms·

YAEAR (Yet Another "Earth's Actually Round") article. One would think that if the earth was really round, there wouldn't have been any need to keep writing suc

YAEAR (Yet Another "Earth's Actually Round") article. One would think that if the earth was really round, there wouldn't have been any need to keep writing such articles after several years, and yet here we are again. > humans can’t immediately see curvature with a glance No, humans absolutely can, as long as those curvatures are: a) intuitive; and b) the curvatures used aren't nauseatingly large. Round Earth start failing at the b) condition much sooner than a flat-earth model. In short, generations are forced to effectively re-learn basic facts about the world they inhabit because new members are in fact ignorant and must be disabused of their intuitive yet incorrect assumptions.

samatman 3y ago
What on Earth did you intend to convey with this? I'm mystified. Are you, in fact, comparing a preference for Algolic syntax over s-exprs, to... flat Earth theory? Surely not.
- nataliste 3y ago
  The comparison between preferences for Algolic syntax over s-expressions and flat Earth theory is not about equating the legitimacy or scientific validity of the concepts but rather highlights the persistence of debate and the necessity of re-education. It illustrates that regardless of the objective correctness or efficiency of a concept (like the roundness of Earth or the utility of LISP's parentheses), there will always be a need to revisit and reiterate these concepts for new audiences who may not yet understand or accept them. The analogy aims to show how education and clarification are ongoing processes, necessitated by the arrival of individuals unfamiliar with established knowledge or preferences.
  - Joker_vD 3y ago
    There is no serious debate. Earth is generally believed to be round (and there is no swarm of articles floating around that explain that the Earth is, indeed, round/flat albeit in some weird corners of the Internet). And LISP syntax is generally not believed to be objectively superior (again, albeit in some weird corners of the Internet) ― even TFA shies from saying that, and most of its arguments are inherently subjective. I know why the parentheses are there and yet, despite the article's claim that "once you understand their value, you’ll likely never be able to program without them", I am perfectly fine programming without them. Well, maybe I am just not a True Programmer then. Oh, and "the solution is to learn to stop worrying and love the parentheses" is not even an argument, just as the immediate knee-jerk response "well, fuck you too I guess" to this ludicrous proposal is not an argument either. The criterion of truth is practice. In practice (of the last sixty years), human programmers have generally fared better with non-LISP syntax, like it or not. Sure, if you love the parentheses, go and use them but don't try to pass you personal preference as the objective truth. It's the similar thing with the literate programming: yes, it works great for Knuth, but it doesn't work well at all for most of the other people who are not Knuth. And by the way, if you drop parentheses and reverse the order of the words, you basically get a FORTH program which is self-delimited and requires no parentheses. So parentheses hit that middle point between the two extremes of "many special pieces of syntax for structuring the program" and "no special syntax for structuring at all" and take the worst from both of them: they are redundant for the machine and they don't help the human programmer ("humans can’t immediately parse structure with a glance"), so all they do is just increase visual clutter. Thanks no thanks.

samatman 3y ago

What on Earth did you intend to convey with this? I'm mystified. Are you, in fact, comparing a preference for Algolic syntax over s-exprs, to... flat Earth theory? Surely not.

nataliste 3y ago
The comparison between preferences for Algolic syntax over s-expressions and flat Earth theory is not about equating the legitimacy or scientific validity of the concepts but rather highlights the persistence of debate and the necessity of re-education. It illustrates that regardless of the objective correctness or efficiency of a concept (like the roundness of Earth or the utility of LISP's parentheses), there will always be a need to revisit and reiterate these concepts for new audiences who may not yet understand or accept them. The analogy aims to show how education and clarification are ongoing processes, necessitated by the arrival of individuals unfamiliar with established knowledge or preferences.
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  There is no serious debate. Earth is generally believed to be round (and there is no swarm of articles floating around that explain that the Earth is, indeed, round/flat albeit in some weird corners of the Internet). And LISP syntax is generally not believed to be objectively superior (again, albeit in some weird corners of the Internet) ― even TFA shies from saying that, and most of its arguments are inherently subjective. I know why the parentheses are there and yet, despite the article's claim that "once you understand their value, you’ll likely never be able to program without them", I am perfectly fine programming without them. Well, maybe I am just not a True Programmer then. Oh, and "the solution is to learn to stop worrying and love the parentheses" is not even an argument, just as the immediate knee-jerk response "well, fuck you too I guess" to this ludicrous proposal is not an argument either. The criterion of truth is practice. In practice (of the last sixty years), human programmers have generally fared better with non-LISP syntax, like it or not. Sure, if you love the parentheses, go and use them but don't try to pass you personal preference as the objective truth. It's the similar thing with the literate programming: yes, it works great for Knuth, but it doesn't work well at all for most of the other people who are not Knuth. And by the way, if you drop parentheses and reverse the order of the words, you basically get a FORTH program which is self-delimited and requires no parentheses. So parentheses hit that middle point between the two extremes of "many special pieces of syntax for structuring the program" and "no special syntax for structuring at all" and take the worst from both of them: they are redundant for the machine and they don't help the human programmer ("humans can’t immediately parse structure with a glance"), so all they do is just increase visual clutter. Thanks no thanks.