3 ms·

Going by popularity, C syntax is indeed king. In the 16th century, going by popularity, it was best not to shower or otherwise clean yourself. Popularity is no

by tensor 14y ago

Going by popularity, C syntax is indeed king. In the 16th century, going by popularity, it was best not to shower or otherwise clean yourself. Popularity is not a useful metric. It would be nice to see studies of languages and productivity, I agree. However, it's made incredibly difficult by those who adhere to popularity. The result, languages like php, frameworks like node.js, and misunderstood movements like 'nosql.'

batista 14y ago
>Going by popularity, C syntax is indeed king. In the 16th century, going by popularity, it was best not to shower or otherwise clean yourself. Only I didn't go by popularity, I went by results: most of the must-have programs the world uses every day are written in C/C++, and almost none of them are written in Lisps (in the order of statistical noise). Saying that that is just due to popularity ("C is more popular so offcourse more programs are written in it") is not really valid. Lisp has the headstart on C, it had a chance (AI, the Lisp Machine era), etc. In the very least, you would expect the Lisp advocates to have a few killer-apps to show for all that superiority, the kind of stuff lone-worf team-of-one C/C++ programmers churn out (and a lot of them are mighty popular). Can you point to any, preferably not Emacs?
- jhuni 14y ago
  The popularity of the language and the applications built in it are irrelevant to the quality of the language itself.
  - batista 14y ago
    >The popularity of the language and the applications built in it are irrelevant to the quality of the language itself. This borders on the mystical. There is no intrinsic quality that a language has if that quality can not be measured in some way. A "better quality" language that does not account for it in more useful programs being written in it, is like a "good man" that never did any good deeds. Even if in some mystical, esoteric way, it was true, it would be of no consequence. Only what has actual consequence in the outside world matters in engineering (and programming). (I didn't wrote "in more better programs being written in it" because that would be a vicious circle).
    - jhuni 14y ago
      Programming languages are standalone products, that can evaluated regardless of their environment. For example, anyone reasonable can see that is brainfuck is a deeply flawed language regardless of the applications written it. If you cannot evaluate a language on its own merits, there is really no point in talking to you about this.
      - batista 14y ago
        >Programming languages are standalone products, that can evaluated regardless of their environment. Only in some abstract way, that is of no consequence to the practice of programming. Because in the real world the environment very much matters, and the best proof that "it works and gives results" it to see it, er, working and giving results. >For example, anyone reasonable can see that is brainfuck is a deeply flawed language regardless of the applications written it. Only the C/Lisp issue is not that trivial. Brainfuck was designed to be "deeply flawed", whereas C/Lisp were designed to have different, specific, constraints and strengths. Or, reversely, it is because there are NO applications written in in brainfuck that we can safely deduce that it has some problems (empirical observation). If hundreds of killer apps were written in it we would have to reexamine our assumptions about it (but of course, it would have to be a different language for that). So cause and effect are lined in a feedback circle in these evaluations. >If you cannot evaluate a language on its own merits, there is really no point in talking to you about this. Languages are not works of art. They are tools. Tools are not to be evaluated "on their own merits", they are to be evaluated by their results.
- nacker 14y ago
  Paradoxically, Lisp depletes the ego. Too many choices. http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html

by tensor 14y ago

batista 14y ago

>Going by popularity, C syntax is indeed king. In the 16th century, going by popularity, it was best not to shower or otherwise clean yourself. Only I didn't go by popularity, I went by results: most of the must-have programs the world uses every day are written in C/C++, and almost none of them are written in Lisps (in the order of statistical noise). Saying that that is just due to popularity ("C is more popular so offcourse more programs are written in it") is not really valid. Lisp has the headstart on C, it had a chance (AI, the Lisp Machine era), etc. In the very least, you would expect the Lisp advocates to have a few killer-apps to show for all that superiority, the kind of stuff lone-worf team-of-one C/C++ programmers churn out (and a lot of them are mighty popular). Can you point to any, preferably not Emacs?

jhuni 14y ago
The popularity of the language and the applications built in it are irrelevant to the quality of the language itself.
- batista 14y ago
  >The popularity of the language and the applications built in it are irrelevant to the quality of the language itself. This borders on the mystical. There is no intrinsic quality that a language has if that quality can not be measured in some way. A "better quality" language that does not account for it in more useful programs being written in it, is like a "good man" that never did any good deeds. Even if in some mystical, esoteric way, it was true, it would be of no consequence. Only what has actual consequence in the outside world matters in engineering (and programming). (I didn't wrote "in more better programs being written in it" because that would be a vicious circle).
  - jhuni 14y ago
    Programming languages are standalone products, that can evaluated regardless of their environment. For example, anyone reasonable can see that is brainfuck is a deeply flawed language regardless of the applications written it. If you cannot evaluate a language on its own merits, there is really no point in talking to you about this.
    - batista 14y ago
      >Programming languages are standalone products, that can evaluated regardless of their environment. Only in some abstract way, that is of no consequence to the practice of programming. Because in the real world the environment very much matters, and the best proof that "it works and gives results" it to see it, er, working and giving results. >For example, anyone reasonable can see that is brainfuck is a deeply flawed language regardless of the applications written it. Only the C/Lisp issue is not that trivial. Brainfuck was designed to be "deeply flawed", whereas C/Lisp were designed to have different, specific, constraints and strengths. Or, reversely, it is because there are NO applications written in in brainfuck that we can safely deduce that it has some problems (empirical observation). If hundreds of killer apps were written in it we would have to reexamine our assumptions about it (but of course, it would have to be a different language for that). So cause and effect are lined in a feedback circle in these evaluations. >If you cannot evaluate a language on its own merits, there is really no point in talking to you about this. Languages are not works of art. They are tools. Tools are not to be evaluated "on their own merits", they are to be evaluated by their results.
nacker 14y ago
Paradoxically, Lisp depletes the ego. Too many choices. http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html