Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> PS. Thunderbird doesn't think that "icecream" is a word.

  Because it's written "ice cream" or "ice-cream".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Holy Wars. Computer nerds seem to be having them all the time.

> programming languages? And text editors. I don't even need to tell you
> the crazy words that have been spoken about mere text editors.

That's because you're fool enough to try to compare an OS like emacs to a "mere
text editor" like notepad. ;)

> 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.  That is, having thoroughly played around with a lot of tools, are
able to reason on objective terms why one of them is their favorite:  this
offers more, got a nice interface etc.

I've seen people throwing at me that I hate Windows because I'm a Linux guy, but
what they don't grasp is that I'm a Linux guy precisely because I've
experimented with both tools and Linux scored better with me.  I was a
DOS/Windows guys far before Linux showed up, but if it didn't, I'd probably dump
Microsoft in favor of BeOS or something...

> 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?

> 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.
 Mediocre language, mediocre thought.  Poetical language, poetical thought.  My
language is not just better than yours, it's also much more aesthetically
pleasing!  bwahahahaha

> For example, take BASIC. The 1980s was a decade of 8-bit home computers
> running BASIC. It's a great language for non-experts trying to piece
> together simple programs. But no sane person will seriously suggest that
> BASIC is any match for the likes of C, C++, Java, Lisp, Erlang... I
> mean, come *on*! It has a global namespace, it has 3 data types (and you
> can't add new ones), hell it doesn't even support recursion! Exception
> handling? What exception handling?

That's 80's BASIC.  You do know some of the guys behind Haskell were behind
Basic.Net?  see:

http://research.microsoft.com/~emeijer/Papers/ICFP06.pdf

> 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 (for the
job).  And with the wrong text editor!!  bwahahahaha

> 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...

> depends on what you're trying to do with it. And yet people still want
> one to be the "winner". People still want to "win" arguments.

I don't.  I only do it for the fun... :)

> 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.

> Now personally, I now try to avoid claiming that Haskell is the best at
> everything. I know it isn't. I point out what's bad about Haskell as
> well as what's good. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I say. Nobody
> will ever be interested in Haskell, and that makes me very sad. It makes
> me feel like "I lost". Which is silly - *I* still have Haskell, *I* can
> still use it in whatever way I want. 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!

bwahahahahah

Post a reply to this message

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

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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. ;-)

and that interpreted text editor alone is so far beyond notepad that calling it
"mere text editor" or comparing to notepad is a joke.

> True. But many people seem to conflate "I like this one the best" with
> "this one *is* the best".

yeah, they should be more realist:  one of the very best! :D

> 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.

what about Gimp?  Could pov-ray not have originated from Mac?  Do you think only
Windows got windows?

> 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 as its back-end.

and that's because SPJ works for Microsoft, huh? ;)

> >> 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:

you take me too seriously... :p

Post a reply to this message

>> Emacs isn't a text editor. It's an elisp interpreter that just happens
>> to come with a text editor application pre-installed. ;-)
>
> and that interpreted text editor alone is so far beyond notepad that calling it
> "mere text editor" or comparing to notepad is a joke.

Oh hell, almost *anything* is a better text editor than Notepad. (With 
the possible exception of sed.)

>> POV-Ray provides a GUI. Therefore, although there is a Linux version,
>> you can tell that's not where it started.
>
> what about Gimp?

That only has a graphical display because it's a graphics program. ;-)

> Could pov-ray not have originated from Mac?

That would be consistent with my assertion, yes. (I asserted that it 
didn't start on Linux.)

> Do you think only Windows got windows?

In general, Unix people seem to have a mindset of "must avoid GUI at any 
cost".

>> 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 as its back-end.
>
> and that's because SPJ works for Microsoft, huh? ;)

Something like that.

> you take me too seriously... :p

Meh. :-P

Interestingly (or not?), I did a few Google searches and found several 
people saying how awesome Haskell is, usually for valid reasons, but 
they are vastly outnumbered by other people saying that Haskell utterly 
sucks, for completely bogus reasons. Mostly of the "I spent 2 hours 
trying to learn Haskell and it wasn't like Lisp and therefore it sucks" 
variety.

I mean, seriously, there are things you could *genuinely* criticise 
Haskell for. But "it was designed by a committee" is a pretty pathetic 
one to choose. "Lisp was designed by divine revelation, while Haskell is 
a sad modern language with a complex and incoherant design that has no 
soul to it." Er, yeah, *right*. Get over yourself.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:44:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Oh hell, almost *anything* is a better text editor than Notepad. (With
> the possible exception of sed.)

sed isn't a text editor - it's a stream editor (hence "sed").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:44:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> In general, Unix people seem to have a mindset of "must avoid GUI at any
> cost".

That trend is finding its way into Windows now as well - was talking with 
a guy a couple weeks ago who teaches Windows admin courses, and the new 
GUI tools for AD admin apparently are front-ends to Powershell scripts.

Microsoft seems to have come to the conclusion the *nix world did decades 
ago - that a CLI tool can be the backend for a GUI if you really really 
want one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Tell me, how many Holy Wars have you seen fought over whether strawberry 
> icecream is better or worse than chocolate icecream? Uh, none.

But how many Holy Wars have been fought over which invisible friend is more 
real?  How many Holy Wars have been fought over whether the brother of the 
friend of the invisible friend was more right than the pupil of the friend 
of the invisible man?  Europe is covered in statues celebrating the 
beheading of people for not believing *this* man was better friends with his 
delusions than *that* man.

In other words, you understand that "Holy War" is a mocking reference, 
right? Anyone who calls it a Holy War already understands this?


> Nobody *cares* what you think is the best icecream, because everybody realises 
> that IT DOESN'T MATTER. 

This isn't true. It doesn't matter because there's enough of each person 
eating each flavor that there's no risk that flavor will become unavailable 
in the future.

The people screaming "Language X is best!" are the people who really like X 
and who want to work with it in their next job, but who are afraid it won't 
be available to them because other technical or management people will 
decide against it on reasons of popularity. (How often I've heard "We can't 
use utterly appropriate language X because it's too hard to find programmers 
that know it, so let's use POS Y that has taken over the world due to 
historical and irrelevant reasons.)

> As far as I'm aware, no mechanic actually 
> gives a **** about the difference. 

Of course they do. They don't fight over it because the tool is simple. 
Imagine whether a professional race car driver could argue over the merits 
of air-cooled turbo injection versus water-cooled turbo injection. The car 
is just a tool for the driver, after all.

> What you *do* sometimes see is wars fought over styles and fashions. 

Because, again, this is enforcing your choices on someone else. People 
aren't arguing over the utility. They're arguing over whether you should 
follow their fashion or vice versa. The fashion doesn't matter - what 
matters is who the third parties will see as more fashionable.

Bloods vs Crypts is tribal stuff, not fashion.

> Stuff like the Mods vs the Rockers. 

I assume that's the UK version of Bloods vs Crypts?

> 2. Some programming languages definitely *are* "better" than others, in 
> an objective way.
> 
> For example, take BASIC. [...] The 1980s was a decade of 8-bit home computers 
> running BASIC. It's a great language for non-experts

You just obviated your own claim here. Do you want to teach first-year 
programming in BASIC on a 8-bit computer, or C++? Objectively, BASIC is 
better for that, and indeed that's exactly BASIC's target audience.

> 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.

And now you understand all the other Holy Wars too. ;-)

> Truth is, if you compare almost any pair of complex objects, usually one 
> is so clearly superior to the other that there's nothing to argue about, 

Except, you know, Holy stuff.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> You forgot a significant part: "for a given purpose."

And, even more important, "said purpose possibly including things you don't 
care about."  Like whether there's someone to sue if it screws up. Or the 
licensing cost. Or whether the great hordes of unwashed novices can 
understand it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> BASIC is worse than just about any modern language for any conceivable 
> purpose (rather than, as I said, simple programs written by beginners). 

Except that *is* the purpose. Do you even remember what the "B" in BASIC 
stands for?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message