1. 9
  1. 4

    Lots of people seemed to like this:


    However I tried watching it last night and failed. I watched the first 10 minutes on psychoanalysis, which oddly concludes with him dismissing the whole endeavor as false. Then I skipped to the part on programming languages, and watched 10 minutes of that and heard a lot of stereotypes about languages, mixed with some of the psychoanalysis stuff, and got bored.

    I think it could be fun to view programming languages through the lens a “false” paradigm, but I expected some more insight the languages themselves, which I didn’t find.

    1. 2

      to me it also seemed to breakdown basically immediately in the programming section

      he says that in javascript, the fact that “1” + 1 is defined means there is “less rules” in javascript. that, for example, isn’t necessarily true at all. i.e. just because more things are valid doesn’t mean there are less rules.

      i think the overall the idea of this kind of talk; a new way to characterise programming languages via psycoanalsis, is interesting, but i didn’t get much out of what i watched.