Comments on: Criticizing programming languages http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/01/criticizing-programming-languages/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:09:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: George http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/01/criticizing-programming-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-646 George Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:21:07 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=381#comment-646 Hi David, You stated that Scala's standard library is pretty embarrassing. Why? In which sense? Hi David,

You stated that Scala’s standard library is pretty embarrassing. Why? In which sense?

]]> By: Basu http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/01/criticizing-programming-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-634 Basu Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:18:31 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=381#comment-634 I'm currently working on a moderately sized python project, so I would like to add: Good: 1. The module/package system is clean and easy to use. Bad: 1. The standard GUI toolkit sucks. 2. The explicit reference to self can be a syntactic pain in the ass when you're doing heavy OO. I’m currently working on a moderately sized python project, so I would like to add:
Good:
1. The module/package system is clean and easy to use.
Bad:
1. The standard GUI toolkit sucks.
2. The explicit reference to self can be a syntactic pain in the ass when you’re doing heavy OO.

]]> By: david http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/01/criticizing-programming-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-629 david Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:35:58 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=381#comment-629 Just as a heads up: Comments so far have been fine, but I will actively delete comments that look like they're turning into a languages flame war. Just as a heads up: Comments so far have been fine, but I will actively delete comments that look like they’re turning into a languages flame war.

]]> By: Daniel Weinreb http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/01/criticizing-programming-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-628 Daniel Weinreb Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:27:28 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=381#comment-628 There are eleven currently-maintained implementations of Common Lisp. See my survey paper at http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html. I work at ITA Software, where we are building a high-availability, high-performance, full-function airline reservation system, whose core layer is written in Common Lisp, about 500KLOC. There are many, many Common Lisp success stories (see the paper). The parentheses are something you get used to very quickly, and Lisp development environments such as Emacs make them far easier to use. Nevertheless, I know they look weird to people who haven't used them. Regarding the Paul Graham paper, those of us who have used a lot of languages and do understand the more advanced ones don't think any language is "best". There are lots of tradeoffs. When I was a teenager at the beginning of the Lisp machine project at MIT, I was a Lisp bigot, but no more. Lisp is great; I do all my work in it these days, and I am general chair of the upcoming International Lisp Conference (ilc09.org - register now!!), but I respect a lot of other languages. I recently starting learning Haskell, which everybody should do: it's mind-blowingly cool, and very different from anything else. Next up: Clojure. There are eleven currently-maintained implementations of Common Lisp. See my survey paper at http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html. I work at ITA Software, where we are building a high-availability, high-performance, full-function airline reservation system, whose core layer is written in Common Lisp, about 500KLOC. There are many, many Common Lisp success stories (see the paper).

The parentheses are something you get used to very quickly, and Lisp development environments such as Emacs make them far easier to use. Nevertheless, I know they look weird to people who haven’t used them.

Regarding the Paul Graham paper, those of us who have used a lot of languages and do understand the more advanced ones don’t think any language is “best”. There are lots of tradeoffs. When I was a teenager at the beginning of the Lisp machine project at MIT, I was a Lisp bigot, but no more. Lisp is great; I do all my work in it these days, and I am general chair of the upcoming International Lisp Conference (ilc09.org – register now!!), but I respect a lot of other languages. I recently starting learning Haskell, which everybody should do: it’s mind-blowingly cool, and very different from anything else. Next up: Clojure.

]]> By: mikiobraun http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/01/criticizing-programming-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-627 mikiobraun Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:51:57 +0000 http://www.drmaciver.com/?p=381#comment-627 I really like your list. I think when you start learning to program, you still believe that there is "the best programming language ever". But then, you start to understand that each programming language stands for a certain view on computation, and it's hard to say that a one is uniformly better than all others for all kinds of uses. C++ Good - As fast as C - Gives you quite a few tools for abstraction (e.g. templates, object oriented programming) Bad: - Painfully verbose (retype full declarations in header file and implementation file?) - Basically an experiment how much abstraction you can put into a language and still compile it to assembly code. LISP Good - really old (extra coolness factor) - gives you about every cool concept that has ever been invented (e.g. GC, macros, functions as objects, object-oriented programming) Bad - Parenthesis everywhere - Is there any maintained implementation besides Emacs? Also, you mind find this older post by Steve Yegge interesting: http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/tour-de-babel Paul Graham had also an interesting chapter in his book "Hackers and Painters" claiming that you always believe that your current programming language is the best one because it obviously is better than everything you've used so far, and you yet don't understand the more advanced programming languages. I really like your list. I think when you start learning to program, you still believe that there is “the best programming language ever”. But then, you start to understand that each programming language stands for a certain view on computation, and it’s hard to say that a one is uniformly better than all others for all kinds of uses.

C++

Good
- As fast as C
- Gives you quite a few tools for abstraction (e.g. templates, object oriented programming)
Bad:
- Painfully verbose (retype full declarations in header file and implementation file?)
- Basically an experiment how much abstraction you can put into a language and still compile it to assembly code.

LISP

Good
- really old (extra coolness factor)
- gives you about every cool concept that has ever been invented (e.g. GC, macros, functions as objects, object-oriented programming)
Bad
- Parenthesis everywhere
- Is there any maintained implementation besides Emacs?

Also, you mind find this older post by Steve Yegge interesting: http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/tour-de-babel

Paul Graham had also an interesting chapter in his book “Hackers and Painters” claiming that you always believe that your current programming language is the best one because it obviously is better than everything you’ve used so far, and you yet don’t understand the more advanced programming languages.

]]>