Paul Graham says Perl is good. Stop saying otherwise.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 14:40
Historically, languages designed for other people to use have been bad: Cobol, PL/I, Pascal, Ada, C++. The good languages have been those that were designed for their own creators: C, Perl, Smalltalk, Lisp. – Paul Graham
Historically, languages designed for other people to use have been bad: Cobol, PL/I, Pascal, Ada, C++. The good languages have been those that were designed for their own creators: C, Perl, Smalltalk, Haskell. – Paul Graham
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 18:45
Good like Arc, huh? Paul Graham is a dipshit, his opinion doesn't matter.
Historically, languages designed for other people to use have been bad: Cobol, PL/I, Pascal, Ada, C++, C, Perl, Smalltalk, Haskell, Lisp. – Paul Graham
There's GNU Smalltalk, which doesn't seem to have an image and feels very half-hearted. There's also Amber Smalltalk and Seaside which are web-oriented.
Related languages are things like Self, Io, REBOL and even Ruby, Ruby being the least interesting one thus its rampant popularity a few years back.
>>13 Some faggot king for a day that LISHPers deify because he participated in LITHP circlejerking awhile ago.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-13 19:27
In fact, my understanding is that Qi and Shen are two languages implemented as Common Lisp macros with type systems as powerful as dependent types. For various reason, I've never used them (and probably never will) so I'm not sure exactly how they work.
Haha, everyone mentions Qi/Shen for supposedly having a super-duper type system, but then it turns out they haven't even used it. Because no one does!
You can add dependent types to Haskell by modifying the GHC code base. You can add dependent types to lisp by writing a dependent type checking engine in lisp and adding macros that invoke it at compile time.
Oleg Kiselyov thinks Haskell is good. Stop saying otherwise.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-15 19:19
>>25 You can do a lot with macros. You can do more by creating your own programming language from scratch, but with macros you can bootstrap into another language that's already known and implemented. Macros are just restrictive enough for them to interact with each other in a relatively sane way.
>>33 Please disregard that the third line. I was going to respond with a comment on the intersection of junior haskellers and web dev people, but then my butt frustration settled and I made a more mature reply. But I forgot to delete the old one which disappeared at the bottom of the submission box, and is now visible for all to see. How embarrassing. The userbase of a language is not relevant to the language, and no userbase is uniform. Please allow me to retract that statement.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-15 19:40
>>32 Yeah, I didn't say anything otherwise. Macros are Turing-complete and have the full power of Lisp. But it's mostly about "can" and "could be done" and "possible", not about actual feature-complete and practical packages made with Lisp macros.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-15 19:48
>>35 The biggest hindrance to getting things done with macros in lisp is the fact that you are using lisp in the first place. Scheme is inadequate. Common lisp is too ugly for most to learn and you are trapped to sbcl if you do. Clojure might have potential, though I hate clojure.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-15 20:07
>>34 The userbase of the language is very relevant to the quality of its ecosystem. And there are uniform usebases. Hard to find physical sim and numerics specialists in the JS or Ruby communities. Or webmonkeys in the Fortran userbase.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-15 23:07
>>37 Well, there is that one person that wrote a http server in postscript.