I think this in general makes sense, except that I think that Python is a little more conservative than he does, pretty strictly centrist, and that either Scala is more liberal than he thinks it is, or DSLs and macros aren’t as liberal as he thinks they are. Also, I’ve found that conservative programmers tend to like their code as short as possible, except when it means it’s less expressive.
Thoughts? I don’t know if his one axis theory makes sense, since I think between the two, I am definitely a conservative software engineer, but some of the things in the liberal methodology seem obvious to me, like “Optimization is the root of all evil” and “DSLs can be useful.”
The basic idea makes sense, though it’s pretty obvious.. Language design decisions (and language choice decisions) are similar to political philosophy design/choice decisions.
Like political discussions it falls apart when someone insists on a using only one or two axis.
I think this in general makes sense, except that I think that Python is a little more conservative than he does, pretty strictly centrist, and that either Scala is more liberal than he thinks it is, or DSLs and macros aren’t as liberal as he thinks they are. Also, I’ve found that conservative programmers tend to like their code as short as possible, except when it means it’s less expressive.
Thoughts? I don’t know if his one axis theory makes sense, since I think between the two, I am definitely a conservative software engineer, but some of the things in the liberal methodology seem obvious to me, like “Optimization is the root of all evil” and “DSLs can be useful.”
The basic idea makes sense, though it’s pretty obvious.. Language design decisions (and language choice decisions) are similar to political philosophy design/choice decisions.
Like political discussions it falls apart when someone insists on a using only one or two axis.
It’s rarely that simple.