4 ms·

CLOS and scala have very little in common, both in the functional side and the OO side. Ocaml and F# are better examples. Can I ask what you think made this a

by asdasf 13y ago

CLOS and scala have very little in common, both in the functional side and the OO side. Ocaml and F# are better examples. Can I ask what you think made this a brilliant talk? It seemed like the standard "I don't want to have to learn so I will pretend there's no reason to learn" nonsense we hear all the time.

agentultra 13y ago
wrt. CLOS/Scala, indeed very little in common and I didn't intend to suggest they were similar. In recent articles that mention this idea Scala is often mentioned in the same breath as if it has exclusive domain over it. I simply meant to debunk that claim if it exists. I thought it was brilliant because Gilad provides a humble deconstruction of common myths and claims of the FP culture. He is skeptical and I didn't find any of his conclusions to be dismissive: he walks through the reasoning behind his opinions. I certainly didn't find any point where I thought he was ignorant of the subject of which he was speaking. And if you listen to his opening remarks about "deconstruction," and his conclusion do note that he points out some FP concepts that are useful and should be exploited more. He was there to break through the hype and I think he was successful.
- asdasf 13y ago
  >Gilad provides a humble deconstruction of common myths and claims of the FP culture He argued with a joke from a comic and lost. Even he would laugh in your face at the notion that there was anything humble about his talk. >He is skeptical and I didn't find any of his conclusions to be dismissive That is precisely the opposite of reality. He doesn't even understand functional programming, he is thus not skeptical, he is dismissive. >He was there to break through the hype and I think he was successful. The fact that both he and you believe there is "hype" is indicative of the problem. "Hey, you should learn things and improve your skills" is not hype. Most of what he says is outright wrong. He talks about smalltalk inventing all of this FP stuff that was in ML before smalltalk-76 "invented" them. He pretends smalltalk predates FP, except again, ML predates smalltalk-76. and smalltalk-72 didn't have the stuff he is talking about. He talks about things "FP languages can't do", but that I do all the time in haskell with no issues. He repeats the oldest most worn out fallacious arguments that have been debunked over and over, and pretends that since nobody is allowed to interrupt the talk to correct him, his arguments are correct. Everything about his talk is an example of the exact opposite of what you suggest it is. If you want someone to convincingly lie to you about how FP isn't all that, look to Erik Meijer. Gilad sucks at it.

by asdasf 13y ago

agentultra 13y ago

wrt. CLOS/Scala, indeed very little in common and I didn't intend to suggest they were similar. In recent articles that mention this idea Scala is often mentioned in the same breath as if it has exclusive domain over it. I simply meant to debunk that claim if it exists. I thought it was brilliant because Gilad provides a humble deconstruction of common myths and claims of the FP culture. He is skeptical and I didn't find any of his conclusions to be dismissive: he walks through the reasoning behind his opinions. I certainly didn't find any point where I thought he was ignorant of the subject of which he was speaking. And if you listen to his opening remarks about "deconstruction," and his conclusion do note that he points out some FP concepts that are useful and should be exploited more. He was there to break through the hype and I think he was successful.

asdasf 13y ago
>Gilad provides a humble deconstruction of common myths and claims of the FP culture He argued with a joke from a comic and lost. Even he would laugh in your face at the notion that there was anything humble about his talk. >He is skeptical and I didn't find any of his conclusions to be dismissive That is precisely the opposite of reality. He doesn't even understand functional programming, he is thus not skeptical, he is dismissive. >He was there to break through the hype and I think he was successful. The fact that both he and you believe there is "hype" is indicative of the problem. "Hey, you should learn things and improve your skills" is not hype. Most of what he says is outright wrong. He talks about smalltalk inventing all of this FP stuff that was in ML before smalltalk-76 "invented" them. He pretends smalltalk predates FP, except again, ML predates smalltalk-76. and smalltalk-72 didn't have the stuff he is talking about. He talks about things "FP languages can't do", but that I do all the time in haskell with no issues. He repeats the oldest most worn out fallacious arguments that have been debunked over and over, and pretends that since nobody is allowed to interrupt the talk to correct him, his arguments are correct. Everything about his talk is an example of the exact opposite of what you suggest it is. If you want someone to convincingly lie to you about how FP isn't all that, look to Erik Meijer. Gilad sucks at it.