How is the polymorphic example not apples and oranges? The c++ is nothing like a straightforward translation of the rust, even though it certainly could be. He introduced a type hierarchy where none previously existed and then said “gotcha, a type hierarchy bug!”
This post feels like turning a verb into a noun (e.g., my ask is…). The construction is wrong. The sentence “we’ll see if we can work to un-Blub ourselves” is meaningless to me. It’s just the Blub Paradox. There’s no “un-paradoxing”. Think of other paradoxes, like the Fermi paradox. Can you un-Fermi?
I think you are being overly pedantic. Graham does not only talk about the ‘Blub paradox’ but also about ‘Blub languages’.
Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
He argues that if you have only seen Blub, you project every more powerful language on Blub and see it as Blub with some weird kludges. The phrase un-Blub ourselves is then perfectly meaningful - trying to understand what looks like weird kludges, so that the projection of a more powerful language onto Blub stops.
How is the polymorphic example not apples and oranges? The c++ is nothing like a straightforward translation of the rust, even though it certainly could be. He introduced a type hierarchy where none previously existed and then said “gotcha, a type hierarchy bug!”
This post feels like turning a verb into a noun (e.g., my ask is…). The construction is wrong. The sentence “we’ll see if we can work to un-Blub ourselves” is meaningless to me. It’s just the Blub Paradox. There’s no “un-paradoxing”. Think of other paradoxes, like the Fermi paradox. Can you un-Fermi?
I think you are being overly pedantic. Graham does not only talk about the ‘Blub paradox’ but also about ‘Blub languages’.
Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
He argues that if you have only seen Blub, you project every more powerful language on Blub and see it as Blub with some weird kludges. The phrase un-Blub ourselves is then perfectly meaningful - trying to understand what looks like weird kludges, so that the projection of a more powerful language onto Blub stops.