Goddamnit Paul Graham [IHBT]

http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html

Presumably many libraries will be for domains that don't even exist yet. If SETI@home works, for example, we'll need libraries for communicating with aliens. Unless of course they are sufficiently advanced that they already communicate in XML.

Good one, Paul Graham. You had me fooled for a good while there.

Java has EVERYTHING.


____________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
orbis terrarum delenda est

>>1
Paul Graham is an excellent troll, just look at Arc

>>1
Wow, so many things wrong with this essay.

>Java will turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end, like Cobol.

Someone should tell this dude about C#

>Any programming language can be divided into two parts: some set of fundamental operators that play the role of axioms, and the rest of the language, which could in principle be written in terms of these fundamental operators.

what the fuck? The only so called axioms of a language are the fucking instructions that a cpu can run. according to this philosophy, the best "programming language" is an bunch of fucking NAND gates.

>The more of a language you can write in itself, the better.

Uh, you've heard of a phrase called Turing Complete yes?

>just as, for me at least, eating a steak requires a conscious effort not to think where it came from.

Your a huge fucking faggot.

>McCarthy's 1960 paper was not, at the time, intended to be implemented at all.

Smart guy that McCarthy was.

>Object-oriented programming offers a sustainable way to write spaghetti code.

WHAT THE FUCK. WHAT THE FUCK.  WHAT THE FUCK.
Objects: discreet units with minimal interaction with each other.
Spaghetti: A hopelessly tangled mess

>Little attention is paid to profiling now.

Sentences like these are why little attention is paid to you now

>true macros-- without which, in my opinion, no language is worth using.

Well i guess that leaves lisp and .... lisp.  Have fun reading and debugging those macros!

>look at a program and ask, is there any way to write this that's shorter

This is a leading cause of programmer on programmer homicides.

>>4
YHBT and have tried to turn it around by being one yourself.
My personal favourite is
Uh, you've heard of a phrase called Turing Complete yes?
Every time someone cracks out this gem I laugh for ages.

>>5
There's nothing wrong with the statement, it refers to the fact that all programming languages are equivalent in terms of what they can compute with infinite time and memory, and equally as powerful as turing machine with that respect.  In addition, a Turing machine can act as a simulator for another Turing machine, I leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.

>>6
Yes, with infinite time and memory. One of the things I agree with Paul on, is that "who'd want to program a Turing machine?". Turing completeness is a bullshit argument and anyone who disagrees with me, clearly doesn't spend enough time using an assembly language.
How about this one
according to this philosophy, the best "programming language" is an bunch of fucking NAND gates.
This is just an extension of the previous argument, and it too is a load of shit. If we continue down the layers of abstraction: a NAND gate can be implemented with 4 transistors. Are transistors the best programming language? And a transistor can be implemented with less than 10 silicon atoms. Is doped silicon the best programming language? Carry on ad absurdum.

What is Turing completeness?
I've tried reading the wikipedia entry on it several times but it just goes over my head.

>>8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYw2ewoO6c4

>>7
1/10

regardless of the magical land of TM's any language can be coded to interpret itself, so graham's statement is still stupid.

Also you seem to agree with me in your next part, my comment NAND gate comment was saying precisely that Graham's idea that the fewer "axioms" a language the better it is, is absurd.  The only redeeming part of his essays is that reading between the lines you see how deep and disturbing this man's obsession with LISP is.  A great programmer is above any language,paradigm or religion and is able to keep an open and objective mind when evaluating them.  It's ironic that Graham keeps going on about the freedom and power that lisp gives the programmer, when Graham's biggest problem is his inability to think outside the lisp box.

>>10
regardless of the magical land of TM's any language can be coded to interpret itself, so graham's statement is still stupid.
And I await your self-hosting befunge compiler ;)
, when Graham's biggest problem is his inability to think outside the lisp box.
I think his view is more that Lisp makes the box that much bigger, indeed, it is as large as you want it. If you ask lisp programmers, "what is the killer feature of lisp?", it's macros. And what do macros let you do? Casually redefine the syntax of the language to suit your needs. To quote Guy L. Steele Jr. "If you give someone Fortran, he has Fortran. If you give someone Lisp, he has any language he pleases."

>>11
And if you show a Lisp programmer a language with an extensive standard library and convenient syntactic abstractions, designed to make common tasks simple and maintainable code feel natural to write, he'll ask "What's the big deal with this, you could already do all that in BlubLISP."

>>12
More like, “Oh yeah, I use this at work. It sounds better than it is.”

>>6,7
all programming languages are equivalent in terms of what they can compute with infinite time and memory
infinite time and memory
Where did you pick that lie from? Some food for thought: most of complexity classes are defined in terms of (suitably enchanced) Touring machines. Oh, silly computer scientists, they don't know that TMs are supposed to run on infinite memory for infinite time who should go and tell them, you, >>6 , or you, >>7 ?

>>10
regardless of the magical land of TM's any language can be coded to interpret itself
All interpreters are written in a compiled language, such as C. Because, you see, even if you have your Python interpreter written in Python, you'd have to find a Python interpreter written in C or Java or whatever to [i]run[i] it. Welcome to the real world, moran!

>>14
Associating the way processors happen to execute instructions with necessity.

>>13
I use this at work
More than you'll ever hear about Lisp, though.

>>16
You're hearing about Lisp right now.

>>17
I never suspected there would be such a deeply hidden meaning in a Pink Floyd track.

>>18
Dark Side of the Moon was about parentheses.

>>19
It also totally syncs up with the SICP lectures.

If you run breate through a spectograph, it shows an image of the Sussman

>>21
Weird, when i did it all i got was Dennis Ritchie. ┐(´ー｀)┌

But in 2003, XML was COOL.
Ergo, pg is cool.

>>14
All interpreters are written in a compiled language, such as C. Because, you see, even if you have your Python interpreter written in Python, you'd have to find a Python interpreter written in C or Java or whatever to [i]run[i] it. Welcome to the real world, moran!

Welcome to the concept of bootstrapping. Holy wow, there are so many retards in this thread. Or probably just on outspoken one.

>>24
Are you saying the main python interpreter is not written in C?

>>24
Step 1: Write an X compiler for language X.
Step 2: Use the compiling algorithm you just programed to hand compile the compiler into machine code.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: SUSSMAN!

>>24
Welcome to the concept of bootstrapping.
Please, open your SICP part IV and read until you come over the definitions of
1) Compilator
2) Interpretator
3) Evaluator
To which of them the notion of buttstrapping can be applied, and why? What is the difference between buttstrapping and crosscompilation? When to choose which?

Holy wow, there are so many retards in this thread. Or probably just on outspoken one.
The truth.

bootstrap my anus

>>28
I can design an assembler in JavaScript.
It would be interpreted,slow, but will output raw binary code.
Now imagine i have execution privileges with said javascript, and run the compiled program which happens to be a
javascript interpreter itself which then loads the assembler javascript and runs it.
 


_______________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
orbis terrarum delenda est

>>29
This is so absurd and illogical I can't tell if it's the real FV or a faker.
10/10

>>30 I actually tried it(just for curiosity, i don't intend to exploit it), since i had free time(now i'm into compression).
IT isn't so absurd since assembler is simple and tracemonkey string parsing isn't much slower then Python.


________________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
orbis terrarum delenda est

>>30
dont see their posts

>>31
Frozen Void is my own personal brand of Heroin.

>>33
makes you steal things and is looked down upon by most of society?

>>33
That shits nasty, be careful or you'll end up on !MILKRIBS

>>34
Dont forget the making me feel fucking incredible part.