1. 4

  2. 3

    This strikes me as overly sensitive and politically correct. There is nothing technical presented by the author. It’s opinions and borrowed anecdotes. This is an example of what can pass as content on HN. I expect more from Lobsters.

    1. 2

      It also fails to address the claims against blub that were put forth in the original essay. PG discusses the expressiveness and power spectrum of a language in terms of what that language allows a programmer to do. Lisp metaprogramming is one such powerful language feature:

      Programs that write programs? When would you ever want to do that? Not very often, if you think in Cobol. All the time, if you think in Lisp. It would be convenient here if I could give an example of a powerful macro, and say there! how about that

      An example of a language failing to provide this expressive facility is provided (perhaps unintentionally) in the linked post:

      True story: the C# feature LINQ had to ‘bake’ for at least a year with the design committee before enough members saw its value for it to become part of the language. All the while the champions behind it were trying to educate and get other committee members to give it a chance.

      If C# were powerful enough, something like LINQ wouldn’t need corporate approval, since it could be created within the language.

    2. 1

      “Better” is a hard word to use constructively, because the total cost (time and money) of hiring a development team that programs Java can often be lower than the total cost (time and money) of hiring a development team in your favourite language, or if you prefer: the cost of implementing X independent products in Java may be lower than X independent products in your favourite language – for at least some values of X.

      That is to say, improving the ability of an individual programmer by equipping them with better language, better tools, a better brain, etc, isn’t simply and necessarily: “better programming”, although this is a subject I’m much more interested in than the kind of cost-analysis of “trade-offs” that this article talks about.