So tired of flamewars between forum members, when all the language is is an abstract model of computability. Underneath the abstract layer, underneath the compiler design, does your language compute powerfully and elegantly? The pop language puppets whose resume just happened to be on top of the stack (pun intended), LIFOed into a job and now coding boring applications and paid like a MFer for that, talks mad shit about the ugly syntax of LisP - but they write like six times the imperative code of LisP for a given domain, which is like how government contractors milk the clock, standing in the middle of our streets a week or more past bidded schedule because they arent kicked in the ass with a penalty clause (govt is notorious for a lack of creative solutions to negotiation, administration, etc - and this lack is the gap through which they filch countless pennies - watch tribal government for a transparent view) - but my point is, imperative languages inflate the true value of a given problem and its solution. On the other side of the fence, I found two groups of imperative functional language proponents arguing about type checking and spouting talk of elegance where very few of them even understood the word, which LisPers constantly regurgitate from their champions book Painters and Hackers. Now, if Graham writes that in HIS opinion static type is a hindrance, must ALL of the LisP lovers follow suit? How many of these followers actually writes CODE like Graham? How many are capable of creating in the painterly manner Graham writes of? The fact that no one there attacking the Haskell man would even TOUCH upon the train behind the functional purity of Haskell showed me that they knew very little beyond their technicians sphere. Fugazi, every last one. These same intellectually lazy bastards will not agree that at the heart of the theory of computation lies MATHEMATICS and thus yes, whether they teach yourself or declare a CS major, higher math IS practical - and they fear operators because they love the mere aesthetic of nested ((()) code, while the purity of Haskell lies in its adherence to the lambda calculus, a design which, I think, requires static typing and yes, lazy evaulation in many areas where reasoning about a given complex problem requires strict functional purity in order to postulate not silly apps but actual ideas about the foundation of comparability itself over a given domain. If LisPers are willing to stop kissing ass to SICP and Hackers and Painters (the author of this last has designed Arc, which totally FLOPPED), they might look at whats in the world right NOW, which is none other than the most advanced functional language on the PLANET: Shen! The fact that Dr Mark Tarver wrote Shen in CL is proof of something about LisP in general which unoriginal thinkers well have missed: Shen is LisP evolved - and like Haskell it is (unlike LisP) lambda calculus compliant (complete) and it includes optional static type AND lazy eval - also, unlike dinosaur LisP, it integrates its own Prolog. Silly flamewars, until Shen becomes mainstream through some serious startups and embedded applications, Haskell is the go-to functional language of this day! Look all over Europe, at the slow creep of Haskell into the backend of some very sophisticated application in financial market apps, German banks especially - not to mention its rise within the EUs ivy league academic world. If youd like to flamewar, roast a language, how about picking on a language that ISNT chosen by America defense contractors and supported by DARPA through Yales Haskell club? Why is it Haskell is becoming important? Because the very thing LisPers criticize is the rigor required to compute very complex problems - Haskell is essentially just one layer of abstraction testing on a core of mathematical purity - or when LisPers spout so much shit about lambda, do they mean something OTHER than Alonzo Church? What is it? If the REPL had become a crutch rather than a mere tool, dont blame Haskell for its lazy eval - if you care to understand compiler design and functional theory for REAL, you might talk less shit. Tarver is a LisPer and even HE cited the limitations. Why not read his research and iterate that in your mouth, rather than plagiarize decades-old books? If you can sit down with that for a week and understand it, then you can talk. School teaches you shit, just like limited self-teaching does. One doesnt sleep with his hammer, so why lie in bed with just one programming tool, when you might need a wrench? You can write theoretically about LisPs unique macros, but really, when would YOU use them to anything nearing artificial intelligence programming? Most write nothing, which is one reason LisP appears to be dying. Download LisP, pop it into Emacs, and dont type another word about LisP again.
Posted on: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:00:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015