4 ms·

Isn't this the blub paradox all over again? I hear the exact same thing about every other programmer in the world from some PHP/Node programmers who only know t

Isn't this the blub paradox all over again? I hear the exact same thing about every other programmer in the world from some PHP/Node programmers who only know that language and insist is the best choice for every possible project. I'm not saying that actual smugness doesn't exist, but almost all the time it's actually just projection from someone who's used to being in the know now struggling to understand something new. Remember when you explained to someone using a language lower on the power spectrum (VB or PHP maybe) why they should use all the cool stuff that you can do in Ruby or Python, how much more productive they would be, how much more fun it was to work in? You thought you were helping them and showing your excitement, you wish someone had told you this a long time ago! Unless you are a world class educator they were confused by some parts, threatened that their investment in their current language was losing value and worried they might not be able to function in this new world and therefore protected their ego by seeing you as smug.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
First: No, it's not just the blub paradox. The Haskell (and also Lisp) posters, even on HN, seem to have a higher proportion of smug self-congratulatory explanations-that-don't-really-explains-but-let-the-explainer-bask-in-his-or-her-sense-of-superiority posts than other languages do. Second: The blub paradox (at least as posed by Paul Graham) is wrong. To see why, just look at Lisp and Haskell. Users of both languages are sure that they're at the top of the power curve. They're sure that when they look at the other language, they're looking down, and they can tell you precisely why ("it doesn't even have macros" and "it doesn't even have a decent type system", respectively). But they can't both be looking down at each other - unless languages cannot actually all be ordered along a single axis called "power". In fact, you have to ask "power for what"? Once you do, you might start to see language power more as a tree than as a single line. You can really only compare power between languages on the same branch. Pick the language that gets you the furthest in the direction that your problem lies.
- silentOpen 12y ago
  I think you'll find that language 'power' is actually better modeled by a bounded semilattice which happens to be an idempotent commutative monoid. It's all very simple, you see...
- innguest 12y ago
  But Lisp and Haskell are arguably the best in their categories, namely programming in lists and programming in functions. Those two abstractions are several times more powerful than the overly constrained abstractions imposed by OOP. The power of lisp is that it is homoiconic, and it asks what it means to write programs that write programs. The power of Haskell is that it is algebraic, and it asks what it means to execute a mathematical proof. Both therefore have the power to really abstract away from things in any way you want. They do not constrain the programmer with an abstraction that is too high and not composable, as are (mathematical) functions and macros (which are composable with hygiene). The prevailing paradigm offers poor substitutes for composability and can simulate very poorly abstractions that are lower than Objects (thereby needing design patterns to make up for starting so high in the abstraction tower).
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    But see, now you're just replacing a one-axis view with a two-axis view. I could equally well have said that a Fortran programmer looks down on both Haskell and Lisp because they don't even have a decent matrix package. Or that a C++ programmer looks down on them because they don't let you really control the details. (Despite the power of abstraction, there are plenty of situations where real control is at least as important. What do I mean by real control? Size of a variable. The ability to manipulate individual bits. Control of individual memory allocations. Et cetera.) Program power is not one dimensional, and not two dimensional. There are more "best" languages than Lisp and Haskell. There are more categories that matter than just programming in lists and programming in functions.
    - innguest 12y ago
      Yes of course, I did not mean to imply there are only those two (that would be weird for the two to be "lists" and "functions" out of all things). What I mean is the current mainstream languages are not the best of any category, like Haskell is up there for functional programming and lisp is up there for s-expressions. C++ is not the best for controlling details (see Rust, D, etc), in fact it's quite a broken language. I doubt Fortran is better at matrices than APL (in fact APL is arguably the best in the matrix category) and so on. That's the problem. These languages that are best in their categories are many many times better than the mainstream languages of today, which aren't the best in any category they represent.
- freshhawk 12y ago
  > seem to have a higher proportion of smug self-congratulatory explanations-that-don't-really-explains-but-let-the-explainer-bask-in-his-or-her-sense-of-superiority posts than other languages do That's my point. It absolutely doesn't seem that way to me, because I know Haskell and Lisp. I'm also personal friends with PHP developers who I used to work with and they have exactly the same attitude towards anyone talking about Ruby or Python or literally anything else. They are angry at the bullshit that these smug language jerks keep throwing their way about how "bad" their perfectly good language is.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

First: No, it's not just the blub paradox. The Haskell (and also Lisp) posters, even on HN, seem to have a higher proportion of smug self-congratulatory explanations-that-don't-really-explains-but-let-the-explainer-bask-in-his-or-her-sense-of-superiority posts than other languages do. Second: The blub paradox (at least as posed by Paul Graham) is wrong. To see why, just look at Lisp and Haskell. Users of both languages are sure that they're at the top of the power curve. They're sure that when they look at the other language, they're looking down, and they can tell you precisely why ("it doesn't even have macros" and "it doesn't even have a decent type system", respectively). But they can't both be looking down at each other - unless languages cannot actually all be ordered along a single axis called "power". In fact, you have to ask "power for what"? Once you do, you might start to see language power more as a tree than as a single line. You can really only compare power between languages on the same branch. Pick the language that gets you the furthest in the direction that your problem lies.

silentOpen 12y ago
I think you'll find that language 'power' is actually better modeled by a bounded semilattice which happens to be an idempotent commutative monoid. It's all very simple, you see...
innguest 12y ago
But Lisp and Haskell are arguably the best in their categories, namely programming in lists and programming in functions. Those two abstractions are several times more powerful than the overly constrained abstractions imposed by OOP. The power of lisp is that it is homoiconic, and it asks what it means to write programs that write programs. The power of Haskell is that it is algebraic, and it asks what it means to execute a mathematical proof. Both therefore have the power to really abstract away from things in any way you want. They do not constrain the programmer with an abstraction that is too high and not composable, as are (mathematical) functions and macros (which are composable with hygiene). The prevailing paradigm offers poor substitutes for composability and can simulate very poorly abstractions that are lower than Objects (thereby needing design patterns to make up for starting so high in the abstraction tower).
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  But see, now you're just replacing a one-axis view with a two-axis view. I could equally well have said that a Fortran programmer looks down on both Haskell and Lisp because they don't even have a decent matrix package. Or that a C++ programmer looks down on them because they don't let you really control the details. (Despite the power of abstraction, there are plenty of situations where real control is at least as important. What do I mean by real control? Size of a variable. The ability to manipulate individual bits. Control of individual memory allocations. Et cetera.) Program power is not one dimensional, and not two dimensional. There are more "best" languages than Lisp and Haskell. There are more categories that matter than just programming in lists and programming in functions.
  - innguest 12y ago
    Yes of course, I did not mean to imply there are only those two (that would be weird for the two to be "lists" and "functions" out of all things). What I mean is the current mainstream languages are not the best of any category, like Haskell is up there for functional programming and lisp is up there for s-expressions. C++ is not the best for controlling details (see Rust, D, etc), in fact it's quite a broken language. I doubt Fortran is better at matrices than APL (in fact APL is arguably the best in the matrix category) and so on. That's the problem. These languages that are best in their categories are many many times better than the mainstream languages of today, which aren't the best in any category they represent.
freshhawk 12y ago
> seem to have a higher proportion of smug self-congratulatory explanations-that-don't-really-explains-but-let-the-explainer-bask-in-his-or-her-sense-of-superiority posts than other languages do That's my point. It absolutely doesn't seem that way to me, because I know Haskell and Lisp. I'm also personal friends with PHP developers who I used to work with and they have exactly the same attitude towards anyone talking about Ruby or Python or literally anything else. They are angry at the bullshit that these smug language jerks keep throwing their way about how "bad" their perfectly good language is.