The head shrinkers of Java

Mental midgets always try to come up with bogus explanations for why Java is bad[1].

It is my hope, now a somewhat forlorn one, that computers will one day approach human intelligence. For that, a language needs the right features on top of which to build intelligence: symbols (not just variables), singly linked lists, ability to treat code as data and vice versa. Java lacks both symbols and the ability to treat code as data (any more than C can). It has classes for Doubly Linked Lists. (Of course, you can always greenspun your own singly linked lists.)

This is all bullshit, and a big misdirection. Nobody, besides a few retard undergrads and brainwashed DARPA drones, believed ``symbols'' and ``singly linked lists'' are going to give computers any kind of intelligence. Not even the AI people working on Lisp believed that.

Java is bad because of its effect on static typing. This mental midget considers static typing a ``serious design flaw''[1] of Java but static typing was a requirement of all real programming languages since FORTRAN in the 1950s, and there were only a few opponents: BCPL, LISP, APL, and FORTH. Even C's creators and users appreciate static typing. The terror of Java caused backlashes against both static typing and OOP, by being an incredibly brain-dead design that made even C appear good by comparison. Java associated static typing with stupidity. As the oppressive cult of UNIX fell to the Microsoft empire, a new threat arose. The teaching of Java opened up the possibility for scripting languages to become real languages, fueled by charlatans like Paul Graham and his praise for dynamic typing, creating this new world of brain-damaged code monkeys and script hackers, who, unlike UNIX hackers, do not even have the excuse of efficiency.

[1] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~hibou/Why%20Java%20is%20Not%20My%20Favourite%20Programming%20Language.html

© Copyright Donald Fisk 2006

Who cares what this nobody thinks.

>>2
Not just a nobody, but a nobody.

>>2
Looks like a professional LISPer that identifies as a ``Smug Lisp Weenie''[1].

_{[1] Fisk, D. (2005). [online] Wiki.c2.com. Available at: http://wiki.c2.com/?DonaldFisk Trigger Warning: Requires JS. [Accessed 7 Jul. 2017].}

I really likw the boldposter. Does he have a name?

>>5
The Mental Giant.

>>4 At least they admit they're Smug Weenies and not start a 10 page argument on superiority of Lisp over everything else.

Why doesn't somebody create a low-level compiled Lisp for systems programming?

>>8
https://github.com/eudoxia0/corvus

>>9
>LLVM
instant fail.

>>9
This feels more like a bad Sepples with parentheses than Lisp. Macros that match on a symbol's first character? What kind of names are defn and w/mod? Systems demand that the source is arranged in a hierarchical filesystem, so an REPL in low-level development seems to be not even considered. Restarts are apparently planned, but the only things they are going to be used for seem to be segfaults and division by zero. What about OOM conditions? Restarts are perfect for this.

Type definitions may occur anywhere, but are global, and cannot be shadowed.

What the hell.

>>9
awful

>>9

His other project, https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro, looks more useful.