PROG LANG QUESTIONNAIRE

0. What programming languages do you intimately know?
1. What are your preferred paradigms?
2. What software dev 'habits' piss you off?
3. Choose: Emacs, Vim, or <crap>?

intimately know my anus

know you my anus

1. Java, Perl, C
2. Imperative
3. Not commenting your code
3. Vim

C++ and C#
OOP
Writing poorly commented code with dumb variable names
Vim of course

0. WHO GIVES A FUCK IT'S NO PROBLEM PICKING NEW ONES UP AND IF IT IS IT'S PROBABLY A CRAPPY LANGUAGE ANYWAY
1. THERE ARE NO PARADIGMS, IT'S JUST LIKE "POLYMORPHISM" AND ALL THAT OTHER CRAP PEOPLE BITCH ABOUT. IT COMES NATURALLY IF YOU UNDERSTAND PROGRAMMING, BUT THEY HAVE TO FILL ALL THOSE UNIVERSITY COURSES UP WITH BULLSHIT SOMEHOW, SO THEY INVENT BULLSHIT. IT'S ALL PROGRAMMING AND IT'S ALL A HUGE FUCKING WASTE OF TIME.
2. NONE
3. I REALLY DON'T CARE

0. Lisp
1. defmacro
2. One day I got bored with Java, so I learned a little Lisp and what I found was a surprise. It is a language so unique and so expressive, that coding never looked the same within my eyes. Now I eat parentheses for breakfast. And if my program isn't done, I eat parentheses for lunch. They might look funny but they have semantic power, which gives your program lots of brevity and punch. In Lisp, when don't force everything to be an object. We just write a bunch of functions, higher-order is preferred. That way you can combine your code in richer ways because the lack of state will always be ensured. Every programmer should learn a little Lisp. It will give you insights to programming you can't get anywhere else. Seriously, give Lisp a shot. You won't regret it. Advanced Lispers are not normal. They use macros in their and are a truly different breed. Any problem they want to solve they convert Lisp into a domain-specific-language that can do exactly what they need. There is nothing cooler than a macro. They make meta-programming and DSLs a piece of cake. Create your own mini-language to parse XML, rate stocks, draw charts, or balance weasels on a rake... simple.
3. Lisp macros

0. C, Racket, Python
1. Who cares
2. Indians
3. Emacs with Evil

0. Lisp.
1. Lisp.
2. Not lisp.
3. Lisp.

0. Surveys are for plebs.
1. Surveys are for plebs.
2. Surveys are for plebs.
3. Surveys are for plebs.

0. x86 ASM
1. Flipping every single bit in memory because it belongs to me.
2. Not writing in hand-optimi[i]s[/s]ed ASM
3. Intel!

0. scheme
1. procedural
2. making things too complex
3. emacs

0. C, JavaScript
1. Imperative
2. Frameworks
3. Vim

>>13
Imperative ape at its best.

>>14
C and JavaScript are disgusting, but it is functional programmers who are the apes. They have been blindly following the wrong thing for the last 40 years and are too deeply invested to admit it.

>>15
If lambda is the ultimate imperative and at the same time, lambda is the ultimate scam, then the imperative model is a scum.

>>15
Nice troll. Oh, whom am I kidding, your troll is terrible.

>>16,17
You are both stuck in that mental box of the Blub Paradox. Lambdas are blub.

>>18
What's "the Blub Paradox"? Enlighten us, please.

>>19
r u serious - sounds like ur trolling bro..

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlubParadox

Blub paradox is the arrogant and obnoxious naive claim by Paul Graham that certain languages are more powerful, and will always win compared to less powerful languages - but the more powerful languages are obscure and less adopted by the people. It's basically a Lisp programmer who wants Lisp to have taken over the world decades ago because Lisp Lisp Lisp is so powerful and solves all problems (while creating more problems of its own). The problem with so called Powerful Languages is that they are double edged swords. No one can read the code any more since you've redefined lisp (or ruby DSL) and made the language into incoherent write once, read never language. An example of the blub paradox is the success of Go Language or Java, which are castrated in the sense that they are not full Lisps.... but in a way castrated from making you get AIDS from lisp infection... (in lisp one can write lisp so that you can read it for a few days, then months later when a programmer tries to read your code, he get's lost in macros and recursion and pretends that functional style languages are easier to reason about since they are more mathematical, when in fact no one has proved this scientifically). Same problem exists in Haskell where you write terse declarations that don't actually show what is happening with regards to the CPU - people find it easier to reason about computers when there is state. Just look at how Go language is succeeding.

Paul Graham pwned by the double edged sword paradox

Paul Graham pwned by these dubs

define: dub

dress (an artificial fishing fly) with strands of fur or wool or with other material.

>>20
Sounds like you don't understand Lisp or Paul Graham's message. Nobody said Lisp has to be purely functional. One of its main philosophies is that it lets you do whatever you want. And certain languages being better suited for certain tasks don't make them any more or less powerful. It simply means that you are sometimes stuck with a less powerful language.

0. x86 asm (I'm working on 64 bit), C89 & C11, C++14, Python 2 & 3, Java, Scala, sh. Probably more if I put my mind to it, they're all the same anyway.
1. I don't really have a favourite paradigm. I wonder why people treat them as mutually exclusive when languages like Scala have demonstrated that they can coexist.
2. Using trendy software (MongoDB, ElasticSearch, Redis). My day job is being a sysadmin, so I have to deal with the fallout when one of these decides to stop working. Fuck off and use postgres like any sane man would.
3. Vim

Paul Graham.
The king Lisp weenie SJW

>>25

I wonder why people treat them as mutually exclusive when languages like Scala have demonstrated that they can coexist.

Because mixing them creates unreadable garbage better people then have to clean up.

>>27
Scala has a GC for that.

>>24

backpaddling is defined as saying "I use lisp because it is functional" and then 10 seconds later "you can do all sorts of imperative programming in lisp"... then, pray tell, what the fudge is functional programming, if it's also imperative. One can do functional programming in an imperative language too, by passing around pointers to functions (procedures).. but does this actually make the code more readable: no. Recursion is also possible in imperative languages. Does this make the program more readable: no.

it's not about readability, it's about making your code unreadable so you stay employed as a lisp/c++ programmer (or perl). Write it out with all sorts of clever tricks, then 1 month later no other developer will ever understand it: you stay employed. Employment paradox (can't employ any other programmers to work on the code, must keep this one dub hired)

>>30
That's the Paul Graham school of programming.

If you're a Paul Graham programmer, it's cheaper to rewrite the code after you leave than try to figure out what you wrote.

Viaweb and Reddit are commonly cited examples.

This is analogous to tearing down a house and building a new one because the original is such a mess that cleaning and fixing it would cost more.

>>31
Indeed, viaweb had to be rewritten in another language so that other developers could maintain it. Amazon stores...

"Don't buy from amazon" -- Richard Stallman

Correction: Yahoo stores, I believe, were the viaweb technology in action (rather than amazon). The joke with Viaweb is it wasn't really all that innovative. If you've every been to one of the old yahoo web stores, they are nothing special. You could write the same program using pretty much any language - there is no evidence at all that Lisp was required to do some magical job that some other language couldn't do. The yahoo web stores back in the day were extremely simple that had no specialties - they were dumbed down interfaces. Why you would need a powerful language to implement a yahoo store back then, is beyond me. It boils down to Woody Allen's rule "80 percent of life is just showing up". You could have written Yahoo stores in Assembly code and people would have purchased it, and rewritten it in some other CGI... Paul just happened to show up at the write time, it had literally nothing to do with Lisp.

showed up at the write time - pun pun pun... He wrote code at the write time, not the right time, but write time. Midnight is code writing time, dubs.

>>29
That was my first post in this thread. And there's nothing that says you can't mix paradigms.
>>33
Of course you can write any program in any language. That's not the point. The point was that Viaweb had a powerful technology that the competition didn't use. The competition was using Perl, C++, and hosting on Windows servers.

>>35

Powerful technology that the competition didn't use... No it's called Showing up first. Turbo pascal for example was written in assembly code rather than C. Do you think turbo pascal succeeded and beat a lot of other compilers because it was written in powerful assembly code, or do you think a more important factor was Showing up (woody allen rule). Turbo pascal had to be rewritten in C later when they realized their powerful tool they wrote it in (assembly is more powerful than lisp) was unmaintainable garbage code that no one could read.

p.s. the original turbo pascal source code, in assembly, was leaked on bittorrent somewhere - it was all uncommented code as far as I remember. Anders Heljsburg just happened to show up first, and write the compiler in "powerful" assembly, which he equally could have written in C code which would have been portable. Showing up first was the key to success, and always is. That's why java succeeds - they showed up a long time ago, as did Unix show up a long time ago. Oh was unix written in lisp or a powerful language like it - nope. Just plain C.

kool aid drinkers believe whatever paul graham says - he is our savior, our jesus - he knows all