Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why your new programming language won't work

colinm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#41

Post by mechanical_fish »

srl wrote: post #31

I actually read this the opposite way from the way the rest of you ([ ] appear to be [ ] are ) reading it. No language dodges all of these checkboxes - or even 70% of them, really. I mean, just look at the "Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks)" list. A language which correctly had or lacked all of those as appropriate (jeezus - jut determining what the correct combination is would light half the blagoblag on fire…

Of course every language fails the checklist somehow. That's the design goal: No language should escape from the joke without being teased.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#42

Post by dextorious »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #22
dextorious wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I understand how it gets here, but I wish people wouldn't upvote this kind of pointless pandering. I'm sure it has a place somewhere, but it's not HN." Should HN only reserve a place for the other kind of pointless pandering, the one the article mocks?

People trying to improve things should be encouraged; even if they always fail; and if its related to programming it should be here. People that mock those people should be taken as amateur comedians, and should be on reddit (not here).

"People trying to improve things should be encouraged; even if they always fail"

No, people trying to improve things should be presented with (sane) "barriers to entry".

While there is no "right" way to improve things, there are tons of certified wrong, dead-end, been-here-done-that ways that should be avoided. Engineering is nothing if we don't learn from our collective mistakes, our history, and from proven theory. Else, you get the equivalent of those countless kooks who claim to have invented "cold fusion", "perpetual motion machines" but the "establishment doesn't believe them".

People trying to improve things is not by itself beneficial. Even if we restrict this to programming, we have fragmentation of effort, and you get like 200 frameworks for the same thing with marginal differentiation. If someone comes along with some radical idea, more power to them.

But we reserve the right to mock those coming up with YET ANOTHER tired cliche of a concept and/or implementation. They don't get free applause just for effort.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#43

Post by SonicSoul »

Cushman wrote: post #13

I understand how it gets here, but I wish people wouldn't upvote this kind of pointless pandering. I'm sure it has a place somewhere, but it's not HN. Some new things fail because of obvious flaws. Some fail because of non-obvious flaws. A very few things succeed despite both kinds. Nothing succeeds because it's perfect-- and that includes every programming language we use today. If there's one thing HN drills into o…

agreed, feels more like Reddit post

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#44

Post by SonicSoul »

Cushman wrote: post #13

I understand how it gets here, but I wish people wouldn't upvote this kind of pointless pandering. I'm sure it has a place somewhere, but it's not HN. Some new things fail because of obvious flaws. Some fail because of non-obvious flaws. A very few things succeed despite both kinds. Nothing succeeds because it's perfect-- and that includes every programming language we use today. If there's one thing HN drills into o…

agreed, feels more like Reddit post

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#45

Post by wging »

srl wrote: post #31

I actually read this the opposite way from the way the rest of you ([ ] appear to be [ ] are ) reading it. No language dodges all of these checkboxes - or even 70% of them, really. I mean, just look at the "Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks)" list. A language which correctly had or lacked all of those as appropriate (jeezus - jut determining what the correct combination is would light half the blagoblag on fire…

I think the point might be that if you don't pay attention to, and think hard about why your language may/may not fail certain of those checks, then you're doing it wrong.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#46

Post by [deleted] »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #24

I can pretty much tell anyone who asks why your new programming language won't work. Its because people like me, the used C for 15 years, Perl for 10, and can't stand Python/Ruby/C#/OtherNewFangledLanguage types... simply do not care about your language. Yup, its that simple. If you can't hook the guys who've been around the block a few times, what hope does your language have?

[deleted]

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#47

Post by Jeema3000 »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #24

I can pretty much tell anyone who asks why your new programming language won't work. Its because people like me, the used C for 15 years, Perl for 10, and can't stand Python/Ruby/C#/OtherNewFangledLanguage types... simply do not care about your language. Yup, its that simple. If you can't hook the guys who've been around the block a few times, what hope does your language have?

Well in the end, the only thing that really matters is programmer productivity... and ultimately the proof is in the pudding I think.

You're right in basically pointing out that if a new language can't communicate quantifiable productivity benefits, then what's the point of taking the time to learn it and switching over?

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#48

Post by william42 »

drblast wrote: post #10

About ten years ago, a similar checklist was the default response to proposed solutions to spam problems. And then someone wrote a proposal that checked many of the boxes on that list, but had the odd feature of actually working quite well. I think that guy quit went on to start a news web site. I guess he was discouraged by the checklist.

Which boxes does it actually check?

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#49

Post by MichaelGagnon »

drblast wrote: post #10

About ten years ago, a similar checklist was the default response to proposed solutions to spam problems. And then someone wrote a proposal that checked many of the boxes on that list, but had the odd feature of actually working quite well. I think that guy quit went on to start a news web site. I guess he was discouraged by the checklist.

Are you referring to CRM114? Simultaneously the best spam filter and the worst programming language.
Post reply on HN