|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 04/10/2010 02:02 PM, nemesis wrote:
> That's because you're fool enough to try to compare an OS like emacs to a "mere
> text editor" like notepad. ;)
Emacs isn't a text editor. It's an elisp interpreter that just happens
to come with a text editor application pre-installed. ;-)
>> Basically what most of these arguments boil down to is "my favourite
>> tool for X is the best - and you should all agree with me".
>
> While I agree that most think that way based solely on personal taste, some do
> take a tool as favorite based on more rational arguments and personal
> experience.
True. But many people seem to conflate "I like this one the best" with
"this one *is* the best".
>> whatever tool they prefer, and if there isn't an option, why argue about
>> it? It's just a tool.
>
> Besides for the fun of it (yes, trolling can be fun), it also shows a big deal
> of fear. I mean, someguy devotes his whole professional life specializing in a
> single tool and then either the market is changing in favor of another tool or
> all the new guys begin showting newToolX is much better, how do you think the
> old fart should react?
True. It's not like they invent new kinds of spanner...
>> 1. A programming language is a tool. You use it to write programs with.
>
> you fool! According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, languages influence thought.
Heh. Well it's true enough that using an entirely different programming
paradigm changes the whole way you approach programming.
>> For example, take BASIC. The 1980s was a decade of 8-bit home computers
>> running BASIC.
>
> That's 80's BASIC.
Sure. And what I'm saying is "80s BASIC sucks so much that it's clearly
inferior - and nobody is arguing about this". The people who argue are
usually arguing about languages of approximately equivalent power -
otherwise there wouldn't be much of an argument.
>> 3. The majority of computer programmers - *especially* the vocal ones
>> who join in Holy Wars - write computer programs out of passion, not
>> necessity. Writing computer programs is difficult and frustrating.
>
> It's difficult and frustrating because you're using the wrong language.
Show me a language that makes every task easy and I'll show you a
language which can only do one task. ;-)
>> Determining which programming language is superior requires real insight
>> and intelligence. And if you fail to see why one language is better than
>> another, basically that means that YOU'RE STUPID.
>
> or perhaps just ignorant of the alternatives...
Let me rephrase: If I explain to you why X is better and you still
insist that it isn't, *then* you are stupid. (Or at least, that's how
the subconscious logic goes.)
>> Take me, for example. I know that Haskell is not the best solution for
>> all situations. For example, while it's a fantastic language, the
>> library support is patchy at best, it's not brilliantly integrated with
>> Windows
>
> Why should it be integrated with Windows? That's the job of a compatibility
> library.
Most open source software is available for just about every OS known to
man, and GHC is no exception. (Apparently some people run it on
hand-held devices even...) But you can usually "tell" which OS a
particular piece of software originated on.
POV-Ray provides a GUI. Therefore, although there is a Linux version,
you can tell that's not where it started. If a Linux developer had
invented POV-Ray, they would have just written the sources in Emacs and
not bother inventing a GUI.
GHC is heavily Unix-centric. When you install the Windows version of
GHC, it installs a stripped-down version of MinGW. The compiler even
lists the machine as "i386-unknown-mingw", not as, say, "Windows" or
something. It installs and uses GCC has its back-end. There's a bunch of
bugs open against GHC and its libraries, and most of them are because
GHC is doing all of its I/O through a Unix emulation layer. This causes
strange things to happen, like reading a non-existent folder giving you
a "malformed filename" exception, rather than a "file not found" exception.
>> But it's upsetting to me that I
>> lost the argument, and nobody else sees how awesome Haskell is.
>
> Well, I see how awesome Haskell is. Only problem is that LISP IS SO MUCH MORE
> AWESOME AND TOTALLY PWNS IT, YOU FOOL!
I disagree. But then, you knew that. More importantly, there are actual
Lisp enthusiasts who disagree:
http://www.newartisans.com/2009/03/hello-haskell-goodbye-lisp.html
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |