5 ms·

While it sounds like he's trying to make a point, it's practically impossible to have a meaningful discussion about language expressiveness when a major party i

While it sounds like he's trying to make a point, it's practically impossible to have a meaningful discussion about language expressiveness when a major party in the discussion is essentially arguing that anybody who doesn't use their pet languages is thinking in baby talk. It's incredibly condescending, and drags the entire discussion down into name calling. (For a previous thread criticizing "The Blub Paradox": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=630094 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=630094)

wglb 17y ago
I agree that we wouldn't want to go all naggum on each other, but Paul has written some recent essays containing parts that might be offensive to others, e.g., http://www.paulgraham.com/discover.html http://www.paulgraham.com/discover.html. To me, the value of this blub concept is a useful self-check about looking outside your current mindset. It is useful to me to recall where I have been a blub-speaker in the past and maybe I am in some way today.
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  Lisp is hardly the only language containing base elements that are powerful and conceptually far removed from other languages, though. There are just people in the Lisp community who make a lot of noise about it. There's a big difference between saying, "There are some language features that are so far removed from languages you know that they just seem weird and alien. You have to adjust to the mindset of the language to see why they matter, and once you do, you'll probably start seeing places they would have been handy in your old code. For example: call/cc in Scheme, unification in Prolog, asynch. message passing in Erlang, type inference in ML. Even if you don't end up using the new language as your primary language, it will still add tools to your mental problem solving toolkit - it will help you to think more clearly." and saying "You're writing in 'blub', therefore you're a 'blub' programmer, and all you're capable of understanding is 'blub'. Maybe some day you'll wise up and use Lisp, the 'language for smart people' (LFSP)."
cia_plant 17y ago
But what if a large part of the 'debate' is in actual fact just people senselessly defending inferior systems, because they don't know what they're talking about? Are we supposed to pretend otherwise, for the sake of civility?
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  Calling them an idiot isn't going to make them curious about conceptual blind spots they may have inherited from their primary language, just encourage them to ignore you.
  - cia_plant 17y ago
    If their inclination is to ignore people who know more than they do about a topic, then they are more or less hopeless. I don't think that people should be shy about discussing what is actually the case with languages, just because some people won't react in a reasonable way to the suggestion that some languages are more advanced than others.
    - silentbicycle 17y ago
      Well, the problem is that the whole "blub" stance is akin to breaking the ice by punching someone in the face, and then getting all shocked when they think you're a thug and don't want to listen to your pitch about the metric system. It's not a stance that invites discussion. You can encourage discussion about language design, etc. without being smug and intentionally provocative about it.

wglb 17y ago

I agree that we wouldn't want to go all naggum on each other, but Paul has written some recent essays containing parts that might be offensive to others, e.g., http://www.paulgraham.com/discover.html http://www.paulgraham.com/discover.html. To me, the value of this blub concept is a useful self-check about looking outside your current mindset. It is useful to me to recall where I have been a blub-speaker in the past and maybe I am in some way today.

silentbicycle 17y ago
Lisp is hardly the only language containing base elements that are powerful and conceptually far removed from other languages, though. There are just people in the Lisp community who make a lot of noise about it. There's a big difference between saying, "There are some language features that are so far removed from languages you know that they just seem weird and alien. You have to adjust to the mindset of the language to see why they matter, and once you do, you'll probably start seeing places they would have been handy in your old code. For example: call/cc in Scheme, unification in Prolog, asynch. message passing in Erlang, type inference in ML. Even if you don't end up using the new language as your primary language, it will still add tools to your mental problem solving toolkit - it will help you to think more clearly." and saying "You're writing in 'blub', therefore you're a 'blub' programmer, and all you're capable of understanding is 'blub'. Maybe some day you'll wise up and use Lisp, the 'language for smart people' (LFSP)."

cia_plant 17y ago

But what if a large part of the 'debate' is in actual fact just people senselessly defending inferior systems, because they don't know what they're talking about? Are we supposed to pretend otherwise, for the sake of civility?

silentbicycle 17y ago
Calling them an idiot isn't going to make them curious about conceptual blind spots they may have inherited from their primary language, just encourage them to ignore you.
- cia_plant 17y ago
  If their inclination is to ignore people who know more than they do about a topic, then they are more or less hopeless. I don't think that people should be shy about discussing what is actually the case with languages, just because some people won't react in a reasonable way to the suggestion that some languages are more advanced than others.
  - silentbicycle 17y ago
    Well, the problem is that the whole "blub" stance is akin to breaking the ice by punching someone in the face, and then getting all shocked when they think you're a thug and don't want to listen to your pitch about the metric system. It's not a stance that invites discussion. You can encourage discussion about language design, etc. without being smug and intentionally provocative about it.