4 ms·

This is just a side-effect of the blub paradox disease. One of the symptoms for those that are afflicted with it is ranty blog posts about new languages that th

This is just a side-effect of the blub paradox disease. One of the symptoms for those that are afflicted with it is ranty blog posts about new languages that the afflicted person does not perceive as being better because it doesn't really have the same semantics as the one language they are used to. I think it was Douglas Crockford that said this. We don't get new and better technology because the old people accept it. We get new and better technology because the people using the old crap just die out.

danidiaz 12y ago
Max Planck said something similar about new theories in physics.
lerno 12y ago
If you had followed what Owens has written and done in Swift, you know that he has worked and pondered the language quite a bit. Dismissing it as due to "blub" is disingenuous. Aside from brushing away the value of his opinions, such a statement also implies that Swift is in some way sufficiently removed from mainstream languages as to feel "foreign". That is not true. Swift is a pragmatic amalgam of features from many modern languages. The issue here is that many of the ideas are not fully realized and stunted to work within the constraints for the language (such as seamless C/ObjC interop). This is what is causing generics to only be halfway there (and same with several other features). In generics, Swift aims for strictly typed, reified generics, but then leaves you only with very crude tools to create them with. Generics in Swift is an exercise in frustration. Owens' feelings for generics might have changed if the support had been more complete.
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  When it comes to programming language reviews I don't think there is any value in them regardless of who is doing the review. Steve Yegge in one of his epic posts explains why everyone should design a language from scratch to see what the process is like. Once you do that the magic and wonder disappears and you realize both how hard and easy it can be depending on what constraints you have. Here's a nice starting point http://nathansuniversity.com/ http://nathansuniversity.com/.
  - lerno 12y ago
    You're the one who evoked "blub", essentially insinuating that the reason for his inability to appreciate the language was due to him not being used to it. I addressed that, and your counter with that it's "hard to make a programming language"? Of course it's hard. And the problem with Swift is that it tried to do so many things at once, even with the hard constraints it had. And this is precisely why the language ends up short of its goal. Speaking of ObjC 3.0, the point of the author is simply that an incremental improvement on ObjC which simply removes redundant syntax from ObjC would have been just as useful but much easier to get up and running. The features that Swift tries to incorporate are admirable and interesting for the most part, but the implementation falls short because it's quite simply too ambitious to even reach "usable" until 3.0 or something.
    - dkarapetyan 12y ago
      You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say "it is hard to make programming languages". It is a skill like any other that can be improved with sustained practice. My point is most of these conversations about the merits/demerits of languages are less than useless. Here's a programming language checklist http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html and another one about the history of programming languages http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-m.... This post was just a variation of the checklist which indicates to me the author is not really interested in any kind of deep analysis of the language and is just publicly bitching and moaning. That to me is an indicator of the blub disease.
      - lerno 12y ago
        Regarding "blub" I already told you that this is unlikely given the amount of dialog and work Owens has done in the language so far. He is one of the few people who has written in depth about the language (not tutorials) If you didn't like my attempt to make sense of your non-sequitor about programming languages, you should perhaps reconsider your approach to commenting / writing. In any case, his post is to be understood as a "current feelings about Swift" after writing code and blog articles about different features in Swift, starting with this one http://owensd.io/2014/06/09/swift-future-for-app-developers.html http://owensd.io/2014/06/09/swift-future-for-app-developers.... Just saying that he is pulling opinions out of the blue ("not really interested in any kind of deep analysis") is blatantly false, as his other articles IN THAT BLOG amply demonstrates.
zvrba 12y ago
> it doesn't really have the same semantics as the one language they are used to His complaint is that Swift does have mostly the same semantics as Objective C, and offers only a prettified syntax.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 12y ago
> I think it was Douglas Crockford that said this. We don't get new and better technology because the old people accept it. We get new and better technology because the people using the old crap just die out. A bit ironic considering what a stick-in-the-mud he is.
mpweiher 12y ago
Post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8367012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8367012 suggests that it is actually Swift that is the Blub language...
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  I don't see how. Being a blub language has nothing to do with ease of use for newcomers and in fact no language can be a blub language. It is more a reflection of the user. If all I know is imperative programming constructs because I've been writing C for 20 years and I start to learn Prolog but fail to understand what constraint logic programming is really about because I'm constantly trying to use imperative constructs in Prolog then I'm afflicted with the blub disease. Neither C nor Prolog is a blub language.
- the_af 12y ago
  That doesn't suggest Swift is a Blub-like language to me. Though not explicitly stated in the Blub paradox, I'd say it implies that a fresh programmer, unfamiliar with both Blub and the more advanced language, would pick the more advanced language. The Blub paradox doesn't automatically apply to every language whose syntax you find bizarre. It also has to be a more advanced language, and the reason that you don't like the language's syntax and constructs must be because you don't understand the advanced features they enable. This is clearly not the case with Obj-C and the post you mentioned.
  - lerno 12y ago
    No? You've never ever heard Java/C++ programmers complain about ObjC's syntax? I find that... unlikely. http://bit.ly/1CqrYY4 http://bit.ly/1CqrYY4
    - the_af 12y ago
      Yes, I've heard it many times. How is that a counterexample? Bizarre syntax alone is not enough for the Blub paradox. I don't know anyone who seriously argues that Obj-C is a more advanced language than Java/C++, so Blub doesn't apply.

danidiaz 12y ago

Max Planck said something similar about new theories in physics.

lerno 12y ago

If you had followed what Owens has written and done in Swift, you know that he has worked and pondered the language quite a bit. Dismissing it as due to "blub" is disingenuous. Aside from brushing away the value of his opinions, such a statement also implies that Swift is in some way sufficiently removed from mainstream languages as to feel "foreign". That is not true. Swift is a pragmatic amalgam of features from many modern languages. The issue here is that many of the ideas are not fully realized and stunted to work within the constraints for the language (such as seamless C/ObjC interop). This is what is causing generics to only be halfway there (and same with several other features). In generics, Swift aims for strictly typed, reified generics, but then leaves you only with very crude tools to create them with. Generics in Swift is an exercise in frustration. Owens' feelings for generics might have changed if the support had been more complete.

dkarapetyan 12y ago
When it comes to programming language reviews I don't think there is any value in them regardless of who is doing the review. Steve Yegge in one of his epic posts explains why everyone should design a language from scratch to see what the process is like. Once you do that the magic and wonder disappears and you realize both how hard and easy it can be depending on what constraints you have. Here's a nice starting point http://nathansuniversity.com/ http://nathansuniversity.com/.
- lerno 12y ago
  You're the one who evoked "blub", essentially insinuating that the reason for his inability to appreciate the language was due to him not being used to it. I addressed that, and your counter with that it's "hard to make a programming language"? Of course it's hard. And the problem with Swift is that it tried to do so many things at once, even with the hard constraints it had. And this is precisely why the language ends up short of its goal. Speaking of ObjC 3.0, the point of the author is simply that an incremental improvement on ObjC which simply removes redundant syntax from ObjC would have been just as useful but much easier to get up and running. The features that Swift tries to incorporate are admirable and interesting for the most part, but the implementation falls short because it's quite simply too ambitious to even reach "usable" until 3.0 or something.
  - dkarapetyan 12y ago
    You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say "it is hard to make programming languages". It is a skill like any other that can be improved with sustained practice. My point is most of these conversations about the merits/demerits of languages are less than useless. Here's a programming language checklist http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html and another one about the history of programming languages http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-m.... This post was just a variation of the checklist which indicates to me the author is not really interested in any kind of deep analysis of the language and is just publicly bitching and moaning. That to me is an indicator of the blub disease.
    - lerno 12y ago
      Regarding "blub" I already told you that this is unlikely given the amount of dialog and work Owens has done in the language so far. He is one of the few people who has written in depth about the language (not tutorials) If you didn't like my attempt to make sense of your non-sequitor about programming languages, you should perhaps reconsider your approach to commenting / writing. In any case, his post is to be understood as a "current feelings about Swift" after writing code and blog articles about different features in Swift, starting with this one http://owensd.io/2014/06/09/swift-future-for-app-developers.html http://owensd.io/2014/06/09/swift-future-for-app-developers.... Just saying that he is pulling opinions out of the blue ("not really interested in any kind of deep analysis") is blatantly false, as his other articles IN THAT BLOG amply demonstrates.

zvrba 12y ago

> it doesn't really have the same semantics as the one language they are used to His complaint is that Swift does have mostly the same semantics as Objective C, and offers only a prettified syntax.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

emodendroket 12y ago

> I think it was Douglas Crockford that said this. We don't get new and better technology because the old people accept it. We get new and better technology because the people using the old crap just die out. A bit ironic considering what a stick-in-the-mud he is.

mpweiher 12y ago

Post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8367012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8367012 suggests that it is actually Swift that is the Blub language...

dkarapetyan 12y ago
I don't see how. Being a blub language has nothing to do with ease of use for newcomers and in fact no language can be a blub language. It is more a reflection of the user. If all I know is imperative programming constructs because I've been writing C for 20 years and I start to learn Prolog but fail to understand what constraint logic programming is really about because I'm constantly trying to use imperative constructs in Prolog then I'm afflicted with the blub disease. Neither C nor Prolog is a blub language.
the_af 12y ago
That doesn't suggest Swift is a Blub-like language to me. Though not explicitly stated in the Blub paradox, I'd say it implies that a fresh programmer, unfamiliar with both Blub and the more advanced language, would pick the more advanced language. The Blub paradox doesn't automatically apply to every language whose syntax you find bizarre. It also has to be a more advanced language, and the reason that you don't like the language's syntax and constructs must be because you don't understand the advanced features they enable. This is clearly not the case with Obj-C and the post you mentioned.
- lerno 12y ago
  No? You've never ever heard Java/C++ programmers complain about ObjC's syntax? I find that... unlikely. http://bit.ly/1CqrYY4 http://bit.ly/1CqrYY4
  - the_af 12y ago
    Yes, I've heard it many times. How is that a counterexample? Bizarre syntax alone is not enough for the Blub paradox. I don't know anyone who seriously argues that Obj-C is a more advanced language than Java/C++, so Blub doesn't apply.