Are we in the worst of all possible worlds?

Good people are constantly being supplanted in favour of the greedy and sociopathic, over and over and over again.

Imagine if Gary Kildall had made the deal with IBM as was supposed to happen, instead of Gates.

http://www.tomrolander.com/GaryKildall/In%20memory%20of%20Gary%20Kildall.htm

Gary Kildall tried to push elegance in software. Imagine sane computing. Imagine if this person had influence over computing that Gates ended up having.

Actually, I can't imagine it, because some other monster would have come along. The demons are everywhere.

The human race is comprised of mostly nasty, selfish monsters. Our being conscious is a mistake and we shouldn't even be here, but that is a topic for another day.

People who try to do good seem to get stopped before they go too far, while the greedy monsters are completely free to run amok.

Anonymous functions is only a small part of lambda calculi.

>>41
Most languages don't have lambda calculus, they have anonymous functions, even though they usually call them lambdas.

>>41
Which is a reason to cringe. It's like imagining the number 36 and then claiming you're working with imaginary numbers.

>>40
[citation needed]

>>39
0/10 troll.

>>44
https://duckduckgo.com/?q="Church+originally+intended+to+use+the+notation"
Fuzzy memory, it wasn't prime-x.

>>33

I've been saying this for years. People put up with extreme bullshit from the popular languages, and learn all sorts of convoluted fuckery in order to get anything real done. They're simultaneously too stupid to understand anything in any other language than they're own, no matter how beneficial it might be. If it shows up in their own language, all of a sudden they magically gain the ability to understand it.

This is getting circular.

Me: if Lisp's problem is that it's too complicated for code monkeys because it has lambdas, how come those code monkeys code in CPS as demanded by the latest JS framework (which also involves using lambdas)?

Anon: Oh, that's because those code monkeys only code in what they know.

Me: if Lisp's problem is that it's unknown to the code monkeys, how come those code monkeys routinely swarm over totally unknown to them JS frameworks and learn to code in CPS to use them?

Anon: Oh, that's because those code monkeys can't understand lambdas.

What the shit. How about not repeating that ad infinitum and agree that maybe Lisp SUCKS for reasons entirely unrelated to the laundry list of supported features?

That maybe there's more to designing a language than making a Self-Contained Beautiful Right Thing and leaving the boring implementation details like making it actually useful to the fans of your Right Thing who recursively try to solve that problem with the Right Thing approach?

The only solution is mass euthanization. These ass-backwards parasitic shitfuckers are an offense to humanity and sensible reality itself. Kill every last one of them.

Yeah, the final solution is to kill all people who produce barely useful software, that would re-qualify the unuseable software produced by the Lisp Übermensch as being the best ever, mission accomplished!

Check out "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. It's satire by the way, normal people don't cheer for that sort of an approach.

>>47
Death of the mediocre programmer would be the opposite of Harrison Bergeron, you illiterate fuck.

>>47

It's satire by the way

Satire is the lowest form of comedy and the lowest form of wit.

>>47
Lisp doesn't have lambdas*
JS doesn't have lambdas.
JS code monkeys do not routinely swarm over totally unknown to them JS frameworks, they stay at nodejs.

_{* However it is closer to lambda calculi than Javascript}

God actualized the best possible world

God actualised the best possible world

>>47

Me: if Lisp's problem is that it's unknown to the code monkeys, how come those code monkeys routinely swarm over totally unknown to them JS frameworks and learn to code in CPS to use them?

Because they only code in what they know. ``Knowledge'' in this context truly is as superficial as simply recognising the syntax. The monkeys know Javascript, follow the hype trains of JS frameworks, and learn CPS from the moderately more intelligent folk writing JS libraries (who themselves most likely got it from a Lisp but don't recignise the fact in their tutorials so they don't scare off the masses).

(is-alien-to 'Lisp (code-monkey :can-read 'JS) :because '(parentheses)) and there is literally no deeper reason. Source: Stack Overflow, the bottom half of all Hacker News discussions with 'Lisp' in the title, /r/javascript, et cetera.

>>51
But then the God-Eater ate God and turned the world into the worst possible world.

>>54
I love that game!

>>52
You know what you need to do with your orthography.

``Knowledge'' in this context truly is as superficial as simply recognising the syntax.

Bullshit. What about the people who swarmed all over Python?

"Oh that was different syntax but it was promoted by Google, so..." -- yeah, go fuck yourself with your predictions that can explain anything.

Or maybe the parentheses are important. Maybe having a community that's focused on making shit is important, comparing to a community that's all about proving it on the internet that their way of making shit is totally superior, and it would become totally obvious if only someone got to actually make shit using their language.

>>57

What about the people who swarmed all over Python?

Different context, ``faggot''. NEXT!

Van Rossum stated that "Python acquired lambda, reduce(), filter() and map(), courtesy of a Lisp hacker who missed them and submitted working patches".

Funny world we live in!

>>59
Syntactic sugar and 3 functions that were already one-liners in Python.

>>57
"the parens" is hiding the ugly truth that lisp is forcing programmers to get to AST level(essentially abstract assembler) and they prefer writing interfaces and high-level constructs instead of combining AST primitives like some lego blocks.

>>60
Was anything a one-liner in Python 1.0?

>>61
AST is about as far away from assembler as you can get. -0/10 troll.

>>61,63
* assembly
^_Cretins.

>>63
/polcat kegabs/

>>63
AST is actually a half-way between a real language and assembler.
C++ -> AST -> Asm

>>65
What the fuck do you think you know? An AST node can be anything from exception scopes, to special binding behavior, to weird method specifications, to declarative config. It's literally program structure, containing any possible expressivity a programming language can express, except in a regular format that's easily transformable and generated. Shit like C++ syntax exists because of trash like Fortran and Algol catering to shit programmers, instead of expressing the power of meta-computation directly to them.

trash like Fortran and Algol
shit programmers

So basically the entire software industry solutions and most open-source projects are written in trash algol-based sublanguages by shit programmers who barely able to code a for sloop. Only elite few Lispers hiding somewhere in their basement with handmade Lisp machines actually write real QUALITY code(actually they make LISP machines write the code, since they're above code monkeys) and communicate through LISPnet using LISProuters.

I think there is a world market for maybe five personal LISPuters. Half of them would be for /prog/ regulars.

>>67
To clarify, because you can't read, the language design precedent is based on catering to shit programmers. New languages carry on the assumptions of the previous languages instead of actually rethinking what's going on, what can be expressed, and how a programmer can manipulate the code itself. It's inertia of failure.

>>69

To clarify, because you can't read, the language design precedent is based on catering to shit programmers. New languages carry on the assumptions of the previous languages instead of actually rethinking what's going on, what can be expressed, and how a programmer can manipulate the code itself. It's inertia of failure.

Lisp is the second oldest high level language in existence. It got really popular in the seventies. It was taught in pretty much every university, so every single formally educated programmer was reasonably proficient in it. Lisp was used as the scripting language in the erstwhile most popular text editor. Lisp was peddled like nobody's business through the first decade of this century by Paul Graham, so pretty much every programmer who ever looked for a programming discussion on the internet was exposed to it. And yet, and yet.

Speaking of inertia of failure, Lisp seem to be a physical wonder, a non-inertial object: no matter how hard you push it, the moment you stop pushing it gets to a complete standstill.

>>70

Lisp is the second oldest high level language in existence.

It's the second oldest high level language still in use.

There'a a big difference between the second oldest car and the second oldest model of car that is still being made today.

Gary was driven to create, not to control. Gary was one of the good humans.

>>66

trash like Fortran and Algol catering to shit programmers

Modern languages are definitely incorporating Algol concepts across the board, look no further than both Haskell and OCaml ubiquitously using higher-order functions and algebraic datatypes.

Fortran is the oldest HLL still in use, and its shit legacy prevails.

>>14
Without Fortran, there would be no car and cdr.

There were cars and cdrs before fortan.
Source: I was alive back then, the road was filled with old cars and cdrs.

>>73
They're pretty fundamental features, though, that happened to exist in Algol first as a coincidence of time.