Off topic... but the following article by Paul Graham has been one of my
all time favorites for the last few years...
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Eliot Miranda wrote:
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.
