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