Blub Paradox (2014)
wiki.c2.com
Blub Paradox (2014)
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#2Is this some kind of Dunning-Kruger effect?
Anyway, I don't think it's right mental picture, and thus context for paradox. Language power, I believe, cannot be defined with one dimension. What is more powerful, Java or SQL? Will SQL benefit from encapsulation or will Java benefit from window functions?
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#3It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to
>And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it?
Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to understand while languages like Python let you do much the same stuff while being easier to read.
So it's not that people don't realise the power so much as they don't want it.
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#4The only absolute truth in the universe: Everything is relative. There's no only one language to rule them all.
Pick the right language for the right job.
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#5It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to >And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to…
I agree and will also add that pg seems to have missed some other ingredients of a language's power, especially libraries and tools.
Python and Ruby (and Perl before them) got big not just as “easy” languages, but as languages that get the job done quickly thanks to the massive amount of libraries.
And while Java, C, and C++ may not be the most elegant of languages, the amount of tools to inspect the code, find bugs, prove properties about the code, safely refactor the code, and test it from the unit level to the level of an ecosystem is what keeps some programmers interested in those languages.
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#6Is this some kind of Dunning-Kruger effect? Anyway, I don't think it's right mental picture, and thus context for paradox. Language power, I believe, cannot be defined with one dimension. What is more powerful, Java or SQL? Will SQL benefit from encapsulation or will Java benefit from window functions?
The linked article is not the original Blub paradox essay and does highlight this problem (the first element in the "A few problems with the BlubParadox" list).
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#7This article discusses the Blub Paradox essay and some of its shortcomings.
The original essay is one of the few texts that stuck with me. I read it not as an affirmation that some languages are strictly superior to others (in particular lisp) but as a push to try new paradigms and ideas even if I cannot see, from my current point of view, how they could improve on my current practice. It is one of the reasons that had me trying Rust this year.
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#8If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now. Ruby really needed Rails to get people to try it.
I think the killer use problem is more an explanation then anything else. Java also showed a good marketing, well funded campaign does wonders.
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#9The general concept becomes much more interesting when applied to spoken languages.
Re: Blub Paradox (2014)
#10It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to >And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to…
I'd love to know Lisp, just like I'd love to know Python. I have no experience in either (I come mostly from Java, javascript with some Ruby and some ancient C/C++ experience). When I look at Python code, I understand what it does. I don't think I've ever written any Python, but I think I could sit down and be productive within a day.
Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. I'd love to be able to understand it and write it, but the syntax doesn't look like it's meant to be human readable. It's almost as much work as reading assembly.
I should probably give it another try, though.