Viewing profile — DanWeinreb
DanWeinreb
HN member- Joined
- Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 2:03 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 96
- Public activity
- 17 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About DanWeinreb
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #2421393
I totally agree about the families. That's way, way over the line. IANAL so I don't know whether there are actually laws being broken here, but there might be; freedom of speech in…
-
comment
Comment #2421305
There isn't any one "self-taught programmer" who can be characterized, so a lot of these comments are claiming to be more general than I think is fair. I have close friends who are…
-
comment
Comment #1805124
About your last paragraph, I agree 100% All of that is more important than choice of language.
-
comment
Comment #1805116
Peter, you imply that Python is better for, or more like, pseudo-code, but why is it better? In my opinion, it is better for most people because they were taught syntaxes more like…
-
comment
Comment #1805107
A function definition is, in general, far away from the function call. If you think this problem is more severe for macros than for functions, then you should articulate why. You m…
-
comment
Comment #1805101
At the International Lisp Conference last year, I put in an evening event called the "Great Macro Debate", in which these issues were discussed. (We encouraged humor, and flaming a…
-
comment
Comment #1805089
Hello, my co-worker, whoever you are. Yes, Common Lisp should have dictionary literals. I don't know why there hasn't been a commonly-used reader macro for this. (Emacs Lisp mode a…
-
comment
Comment #1803703
Oh, it's so ugly, and it hasn't been checked for mistakes, etc. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with it.
-
comment
Comment #1803691
I agree. But if you find yourself with an employer who requires that everything be written one of a few languages, and Lisp isn't on the menu, I'd take Python over C++ in a heartbe…
-
comment
Comment #1803638
I tried writing an extensive Common Lisp vs. Python paper (yes, I have seen all of the existing ones), but it got too big and out of hand. One of interesting developments in Python…
-
comment
Comment #207911
I guess so, but actually I don't think that Java and CLOS have such a different idea of what OOP means. They just have different specific features. CLOS has multimethods and multip…
-
comment
Comment #207908
It's true that when people learn object-oriented programming, and they learn about inheritance, they tend to think that inheritance is something you should be using heavily all ove…
-
comment
Comment #207906
Yes. That's why you want a multi-paradigm language, in which all of those methods of writing code are available. The trick is to figure out how to provide all of them in a way that…
-
comment
Comment #207902
Exactly. If your IDE can just generate it, then why is it needed at all? And, as I said, it makes the code harder to read. You have to look over all the boilerplate and see if it's…
-
comment
Comment #207899
I was one of the designers at BEA for four years. (BEA made WebLogic, a leading J2EE server.) Indeed, J2EE requires a lot of annoying boilerplate. Yes, you have to let the IDE hand…
-
comment
Comment #207891
C succeeded because it was the language of Unix, and it rode to success on Unix's success. C++ did indeed succeed because so many people knew C. Java has very little to do with C, …
-
comment
Comment #207884
That's an amusing idea, but it is not the case. I used Lisp extensively at the MIT AI Lab, at Symbolics (I was a founder), and now at ITA Software. The people worked together as te…