5 ms·
Language is very important. Bad code in python is at least still python. Bad code in lisp can be an inpenetrable eldritch abomination where the only option is t
by rowanG077 2y ago
Language is very important. Bad code in python is at least still python. Bad code in lisp can be an inpenetrable eldritch abomination where the only option is to rewrite from scratch. I believe this is actually the primary reason google build go. You can't write good code. But you also can't write really bad code.
- geon 2y ago> Bad code in lisp can be an inpenetrable eldritch abomination where the only option is to rewrite from scratch. That’s also true for good lisp.
- cess11 2y agoWhy do you believe it impossible for Python to be impenetrable? A Common Lisp will likely be much more introspectable and debuggable than your average CPython. I think Google designed Golang to be a small language for implementing network services that will tie newcomers to programming hard to that specific language and then also Google. Hence the syntactic quirks and the err spectre. That it enables development of CLI applications was likely an unexpected bonus.
- kunley 2y ago@cess11 on Golang, no, rather Ken Thompson and colleagues designed a language stripped off things they find as an unnecessary cruft and they could finally get back to the fun they had before Java and OO.
- cess11 2y ago"Finally".
- grumpyprole 2y agoI don't disagree that Java has cruft, but Go didn't fix data races, nulls or lack of sum types. It's not a "fun" language for me.
- kunley 2y agoYeah that's ok for you to think like that, at the same time it's fun for the creators and for a number of users, including me. Btw there so many languages with sum types (and almost none that fixed data races) that everybody can choose. The point is, I was aiming to refute one cummenter's claim that Go was created to lure specific people into Google as devs. Highly unlikely, Go's adoption in Google wasn't bad but also wasn't exactly a bed of roses.
- neonsunset 2y agoWait until you learn about Go's custom """portable""" (it's not) ASM dialect.
- dudinax 2y agoIt's not impossible for python to be impenetrable, but it usually isn't.
- rowanG077 2y agoIt's not impossible. But rather much less likely. And even less likely to do by accident. Lisp by itself basically encourages programming deviating from standard practices. That the entire reason it's so powerful. It takes a real genius in addition to strong restraint to keep writing good code in that environment.
- cess11 2y agoWhat do you mean, "encourages programming deviating from standard practices"?
- kazinator 2y agoHe means he once read an article written by a web developer with no Lisp development experience called "The Lisp Curse", and that's his entire Lisp development experience.
- cess11 2y agoRight, yeah, seems likely. Such comparisons are usually pretty weird, putting non-hygienic macros against ordinary programming in some other language, rather than macros against the metaprogramming used there. Experience with macros and their footguns arguably prepared me pretty well for using JAXB and reflection professionally.
- tripleo1 2y agoHe means it's hard to do Java(script)
- rowanG077 2y agoLisp Macros are encouraged. In most other language you can't even write syntactical extensions. Such things are, generally, horrendous for readability. Like I said you can wield them effectively. But the average developer won't be able to.
- cess11 2y ago
- Pannoniae 2y ago"I believe this is actually the primary reason google build go." Well the actual quiet part is that they built Go to reduce costs of paying those highly trained software engineers and replace them with moderately trained monkeys.
- lomase 2y agoActually it was because some engenieers take pride in creating complex solutions for problems that a moderately trained monkey could solve in a managed language.