Why your new programming language won't work • Hacker News Board

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#51

Post by Tsagadai » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 1:41 AM UTC

apl wrote: post #5

pnathan wrote: post #3

That's pretty win. I nearly laughed tea through my nose. In particular, this was win: [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification [ ] You have reinvented Brainf*** but non-ironically

The expression "[...] is win" is decidedly not win.

Languages evolve and living languages change. Speaking or writing in a particular way is one of the fundamental techniques humans use to associate themselves with a culture, society, or any other term for 'group of people'. Criticising someone for their cultural membership is not acceptable here nor should it be acceptable elsewhere. How we talk and write is a tool to define who we are or who we want to be.

You may be trying to suggest that the grandparent post adds nothing to the discussion but that is not what you did. You criticised the grandparent for their association with an internet subculture's vernacular. Criticise the comment, not the parlance it is delivered in.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#52

Post by doomlaser » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 2:25 AM UTC

doomlaser wrote: post #30

apl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expression "[...] is win" is decidedly not win.

This. <--- ducks

And the Hacker News elite rewards my poor joke with swift punishment.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#53

Post by pnathan » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 2:34 AM UTC

apl wrote: post #5

pnathan wrote: post #3

That's pretty win. I nearly laughed tea through my nose. In particular, this was win: [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse [ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification [ ] You have reinvented Brainf*** but non-ironically

The expression "[...] is win" is decidedly not win.

I'm sorry that you dislike my slang. It is true, I could have elucidated my thoughts at length, using ancient and time-honored words with many syllables.

But I was pointing out something I found humorous in a joke checklist.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#54

Post by dreww » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 2:49 AM UTC

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…

i read it as making fun of knee jerk anti-new-language types, as in, all their arguments are pat and repetitive.

maybe that's just my perceptual bias, but perhaps also the greater context of hacker news that you point to in your comment. i tend to believe that things are posted here in support of experimentation.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#55

Post by nbashaw » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 2:57 AM UTC

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…

I thought the post was meant to be ironic.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#56

Post by Vivtek » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 2:59 AM UTC

MichaelGagnon wrote: post #49

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.

This kind of offhand comment revealing something I never heard of yet fall instantaneously in love with is exactly why HNN exists.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#57

Post by dasil003 » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 3:06 AM UTC

davesims wrote: post #33

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…

I'm not sure I understand where the pandering was, and for me the post certainly wasn't pointless, I learned some new things, and it provoked me to think deeper about the difficulty of language design. I read it as a humorous warning to would-be language designers of the challenges and pitfalls of coming up with a new syntax, compiler, runtime, etc. A quick run-through of the items in the checklist should give you a…

> I'm not sure I understand where the pandering was, and for me the post certainly wasn't pointless

Yes it's not pointless the first time you see it. Where it becomes pointless is on Slashdot any time there is ever an article about a new program language and 2 or 3 people fill it out for the comments.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#58

Post by dasil003 » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 3:14 AM UTC

Tsagadai wrote: post #51

apl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expression "[...] is win" is decidedly not win.

Languages evolve and living languages change. Speaking or writing in a particular way is one of the fundamental techniques humans use to associate themselves with a culture, society, or any other term for 'group of people'. Criticising someone for their cultural membership is not acceptable here nor should it be acceptable elsewhere. How we talk and write is a tool to define who we are or who we want to be. You may b…

I lived through my teenage years when everyone was saying "Not!" all the time, and I did not let that stick in my vocabulary. As a surly old-timer in training, I reserve the right to complain about any slang anybody uses, and win/fail as adjectives definitely are topping my list these days.

Maybe if we ridicule them enough they'll move on to more clever slang, or at least more obscure slang so that I no longer understand it enough for it to annoy me.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#59

Post by Zak » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 3:28 AM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #20

"[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification" I always like this one. Even thus I have no real thing against PHP, it makes me smile.

I have something against PHP, but there's a deeper point to be made here. A language that does nothing more than reinvent a popular language will not succeed, even if it does a better job. To succeed, a language has to provide a good solution to a problem a lot of developers are having. Some examples:

* C - assembly and machine languages are not portable

* PHP - the barriers to entry for server-side web programming are too hugh

* Java - C++ becomes too error-prone with large teams

* Clojure[0] - there's too much complexity in programming that isn't inherent to the problems being solved

* Ruby, Python - Perl is really useful, but a little too messy

[0] Calling Clojure popular may be pushing it, but there seems to be some momentum building behind it.

Re: Why your new programming language won't work

#60

Post by nknight » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 5:11 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #57

davesims wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand where the pandering was, and for me the post certainly wasn't pointless, I learned some new things, and it provoked me to think deeper about the difficulty of language design. I read it as a humorous warning to would-be language designers of the challenges and pitfalls of coming up with a new syntax, compiler, runtime, etc. A quick run-through of the items in the checklist should give you a…

> I'm not sure I understand where the pandering was, and for me the post certainly wasn't pointless Yes it's not pointless the first time you see it. Where it becomes pointless is on Slashdot any time there is ever an article about a new program language and 2 or 3 people fill it out for the comments.

Thankfully, HN's content is not governed by the content of Slashdot's comments.