On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> According to this guy, we're using 3rd most powful programming > language (or, well one of 4.. to not insult anyone ;). > > http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html > > So, we're not that bad, eh? :) > I like what he says about patterns: "If you try to solve a hard problem, the question is not whether you will use a powerful enough language, but whether you will (a) use a powerful language, (b) write a de facto interpreter for one, or (c) yourself become a human compiler for one. We see this already begining to happen in the Python example, where we are in effect simulating the code that a compiler would generate to implement a lexical variable. This practice is not only common, but institutionalized. For example, in the OO world you hear a good deal about "patterns". I wonder if these patterns are not sometimes evidence of case (c), the human compiler, at work. When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't powerful enough-- often that I'm generating by hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write." > > A very good explanation to 'pointy-haired' why 'mainstream' language > are not best choice.. > as well as good illustration that in order to compete and stay > popular, all mainstream languages > will slowly converge to lisp. > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > -- best, Eliot
