2 ms·
I think this illustrates that perceived shallow blemishes that upset newbies have nothing to do with success or failure of a programming language. Another exam
by pfdietz 2y ago
I think this illustrates that perceived shallow blemishes that upset newbies have nothing to do with success or failure of a programming language. Another example here is "all those parentheses", and perhaps even lack of static typing.
- kerkeslager 2y agoIt's a shallow blemish yes. I wouldn't say is has nothing to do with the success or failure--but as I said in my post, it kind of doesn't matter much. The problem I have here is this total unwillingness to admit that it is a blemish. Like because Common Lisp did it, it can't be wrong, so we have to come up with bizarre justifications for this like pretending some ancient hardware architecture is better than today's "braindamaged" CPUs.
- pfdietz 2y agoI don't think anyway says it isn't a blemish. The point being made is that it's a trivial, irrelevant, and unimportant blemish.
- kerkeslager 2y agoThe way Naggum presents it, it's as if it is not only not a blemish, but a work of genius.
- pfdietz 2y agoIf I wanted to nitpick, I'll point out that I used "says", not "said". In the present tense, Naggum can no longer say anything at all. :/