p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

«‹›1784 »

Blotto Skorzany: Nov 7, 2008; He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

b0lt posted:

golang targeting c++ programmers is hilarious because it's a garbage collected language without generics that's slow as gently caress and has c interop via putting code into comments

somehow, noted weenis rob pike didn't realize these would be stumbling blocks to adoption lol

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 12:37

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Blotto Skorzany posted:

i don't quite get this. golang targeted c++ (and maybe java?) programmers and (predictably) failed at that and instead converted python programmers, its success or failure doesn't seem to have much bearing on rust's ability to convert c++ programmers

go and rust both mention systems programming in multi core environments as a core goal ( in the first section of the golang FAQ and the rust front page respectively )

maybe they targeted different populations but they sure seem to have set sights on similar problems

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:08

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

tef posted:

worse is better: a bitter lisp user cries over the lack of success, and cannot find fault with his approach and so proclaims "worse is better". lisp wasn't wrong, everyone else was wrong. worse is better is a core part of our cultural dissonance: tech is a meritocracy where the best ideas and people can succeed, all the way to the top, but the code they write is awful because worse is better.

a shorthand for intellectual snobbery from a mind placid and unchallenged. could it be that go focused on user issues way more than rust did? no. it's because it's popular with the plebs.

go got adoption and fame from being attached to google. meanwhile, mozilla hold a non-insignificant sway within the tech community. go has things like go fmt, go fix, go build. there are no goddam makefiles. the package management is a little janky, but the language stabilised early for better or worse. rust on the other hand has gone through major drastic changes, although the mechanisms for enforcing safety are there, the idioms aren't as much�a lot of the language is being discovered.

go and rust have mighty different goals. go was "i want to write in C but lazier", rust was "I want to write in ML but with pointers and structs." for the people who don't write in go, or in rust, i guess from the outside they look pretty comparable, like python and ruby do, but the culture behind the language is quite different. rust has been built around browser components, cross platform was a big thing. go on the other hand has come from unix daemons and plan9�little services that copy bytes around.

it isn't worse is better.

worse is better did talk about cultural differences in approach but kinda stopped short of actually talking about the social factors at play. he then went on to rewrite it a bunch of times which no-one bothered to read, let alone the original essay.

I think I found tef's trigger phrase

also gofmt is a thing of genius. having a canonical format from day one ends a lot of lovely discussions later on. e.g. Python tabs vs spaces

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:10

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

it's naggum

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:16

b0lt: Apr 29, 2005

tef posted:

a shorthand for intellectual snobbery from a mind placid and unchallenged. could it be that go focused on user issues way more than rust did? no. it's because it's popular with the plebs.

notable user issues such as "generics are too hard" and "my language is too fast"

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:22

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

tef posted:

it's naggum

if it makes you feel any better it was meant to be triggering

I was hoping "yada yada" in between "worse is better" and "naggum" would be enough to identify it as a joke. but I should have known better. on comp.lang.lisp, there are no jokes. the real-est yospos analog

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:22

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

tef posted:

worse is better: a bitter lisp user cries over the lack of success, and cannot find fault with his approach and so proclaims "worse is better". lisp wasn't wrong, everyone else was wrong. worse is better is a core part of our cultural dissonance: tech is a meritocracy where the best ideas and people can succeed, all the way to the top, but the code they write is awful because worse is better.

a shorthand for intellectual snobbery from a mind placid and unchallenged. could it be that go focused on user issues way more than rust did? no. it's because it's popular with the plebs.

go got adoption and fame from being attached to google. meanwhile, mozilla hold a non-insignificant sway within the tech community. go has things like go fmt, go fix, go build. there are no goddam makefiles. the package management is a little janky, but the language stabilised early for better or worse. rust on the other hand has gone through major drastic changes, although the mechanisms for enforcing safety are there, the idioms aren't as much�a lot of the language is being discovered.

go and rust have mighty different goals. go was "i want to write in C but lazier", rust was "I want to write in ML but with pointers and structs." for the people who don't write in go, or in rust, i guess from the outside they look pretty comparable, like python and ruby do, but the culture behind the language is quite different. rust has been built around browser components, cross platform was a big thing. go on the other hand has come from unix daemons and plan9�little services that copy bytes around.

it isn't worse is better.

worse is better did talk about cultural differences in approach but kinda stopped short of actually talking about the social factors at play. he then went on to rewrite it a bunch of times which no-one bothered to read, let alone the original essay.

Thank you for this. The HN crowd is the worst at this, at believing that there's something other than technical features that keep their bespoke original PL from reaching the top

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:41

pseudorandom name: May 6, 2007

clearly Y is unsuccessful because it is missing X written in Y, so we better post about that kind of thing non-stop

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:45

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Suspicious Dish posted:

Thank you for this. The HN crowd is the worst at this, at believing that there's something other than technical features that keep their bespoke original PL from reaching the top

in the case of lisp the main answer is incompetent vendors

e.g. symbolics went down over a real estate deal. and the less said about Xerox or TI the better.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 07:53

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

Symbolics had a slow and painful death. It wasn't one dumb real estate deal that killed them, it was them not really ever having a customer outside of government, and then they didn't renew their contract.

Symbolics never had a great product it sold, it was all over the map, grasping at any straws it could.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 08:01

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

And it's not just Symbolics. Thinking Machines, another Lisp corporation, died of the same death.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 08:06

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

tef posted:

it seems to have targeted "people who do not want to write c++" not "people who write c++"

(i've seen more migrants from Python and C though)

it's me i'm the people who never, ever want to write a c++

# ? Jan 5, 2015 10:04

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

i dont want to write c++ because the syntax looks scary and it sounds difficult, but im gonna try rust once it's done changing

# ? Jan 5, 2015 11:02

gonadic io: Feb 16, 2011; >>=

fart simpson posted:

i dont want to write c++ because the syntax looks scary and it sounds difficult, but im gonna try rust once it's done changing

# ? Jan 5, 2015 11:11

b0lt: Apr 29, 2005

fart simpson posted:

i dont want to write c++ because the syntax looks scary

quote:

im gonna try rust once it's done changing

# ? Jan 5, 2015 11:25

Brave GNU World: Nov 1, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Mr Dog posted:

go seems cool i guess but for what it seems intended to do (servers) the best programming language already exists

yeah, javascript and nodejs ftw! :getin:

# ? Jan 5, 2015 11:36

suffix: Jul 27, 2013; Wheeee!

tef posted:

go got adoption and fame from being attached to google. meanwhile, mozilla hold a non-insignificant sway within the tech community. go has things like go fmt, go fix, go build. there are no goddam makefiles. the package management is a little janky, but the language stabilised early for better or worse.

lol if you use go without makefiles

i picked up a go project recently and the first thing i encountered was a version incompatibility

and of course go has hundreds of fledgling bundler clones but the community hasn't standardized on any of them because most of them haven't dealt with three months old code yet

so now your writing scripts to check out the correct version of everything and build and run tests with the correct go path

# ? Jan 5, 2015 11:57

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

b0lt posted:

well you see i mostly use languages in the ml family so a lot of the stuff that probably looks weird to you already looks pretty normal to me

# ? Jan 5, 2015 12:56

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

Suspicious Dish posted:

Symbolics had a slow and painful death. It wasn't one dumb real estate deal that killed them, it was them not really ever having a customer outside of government, and then they didn't renew their contract.

Symbolics never had a great product it sold, it was all over the map, grasping at any straws it could.

symbolics had an ample supply of proper geniuses and had several good products that it did sell. just not well. they were obsessed with the wrong stuff (irrelevant lisp idealism) and failed to notice what stuff they were ahead on the curve on (their graphics stuff like s-geometry, statice, etc)

i think they could have survived being tied down to lisp even, if they hadn't been boneheadedly tried to do hardware

# ? Jan 5, 2015 14:46

Sweevo: Nov 8, 2007; i sometimes throw cables away

i mean straight into the bin without spending 10+ years in the box of might-come-in-handy-someday first

im a fucking monster

symbolics died because nobody outside academia and a few military customers ever gave a poo poo about lisp

# ? Jan 5, 2015 14:55

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

tef posted:

worse is better: a bitter lisp user cries over the lack of success, and cannot find fault with his approach and so proclaims "worse is better". lisp wasn't wrong, everyone else was wrong. worse is better is a core part of our cultural dissonance: tech is a meritocracy where the best ideas and people can succeed, all the way to the top, but the code they write is awful because worse is better.

a shorthand for intellectual snobbery from a mind placid and unchallenged. could it be that go focused on user issues way more than rust did? no. it's because it's popular with the plebs.

go got adoption and fame from being attached to google. meanwhile, mozilla hold a non-insignificant sway within the tech community. go has things like go fmt, go fix, go build. there are no goddam makefiles. the package management is a little janky, but the language stabilised early for better or worse. rust on the other hand has gone through major drastic changes, although the mechanisms for enforcing safety are there, the idioms aren't as much�a lot of the language is being discovered.

go and rust have mighty different goals. go was "i want to write in C but lazier", rust was "I want to write in ML but with pointers and structs." for the people who don't write in go, or in rust, i guess from the outside they look pretty comparable, like python and ruby do, but the culture behind the language is quite different. rust has been built around browser components, cross platform was a big thing. go on the other hand has come from unix daemons and plan9�little services that copy bytes around.

it isn't worse is better.

worse is better did talk about cultural differences in approach but kinda stopped short of actually talking about the social factors at play. he then went on to rewrite it a bunch of times which no-one bothered to read, let alone the original essay.

go and rust both exist so a new generation can resolve old problems.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 15:51

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Shaggar posted:

go and rust both exist so a new generation can resolve old problems.

yes because we find the old resolutions to those problems unsatisfactory

# ? Jan 5, 2015 16:25

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

yeah children aren't very smart. eventually you'll grow out of it.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 16:29

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Suspicious Dish posted:

Symbolics never had a great product it sold, it was all over the map, grasping at any straws it could.

symbolics was indeed all over the map, but they had products they actually sold. like, end-user applications to do work, not macho developer pie in the sky poo poo

they had a successful graphics business. (this later became mirai.)
they sold the poo poo out of macsyma, the original symbolic math package. mathematica was a straight-up clone of macsyma.
they made embedded/realtime stuff for AT&T.
for some reason hypertext was a market that people paid money for in the 1980s, and symbolics was both able and willing to sell hypertext authoring/browsing systems

Suspicious Dish posted:

And it's not just Symbolics. Thinking Machines, another Lisp corporation, died of the same death.

thinking machines is a much more apt example of not knowing your customer. they sold non-vector "super-"computers that no one could actually write code for. they were obsessed with attracting commercial $$ for "scientific computing" but never actually had contracts outside of defense, because commercial clients don't spend millions on products that don't work.

they weren't even a lisp business, in that they didn't provide any useful software with their bizarro systems. they just had a lisp workstation as a service processor, to handle the boot process etc

that should say it all about TM. they had a $50k+ workstation as a service processor, feeding boot code to a computer no one could program.

all it ever did right was look cool:

# ? Jan 5, 2015 16:43

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Shaggar posted:

yeah children aren't very smart. eventually you'll grow out of it.

i probably wont grow out of it because im just a hobbyist programmer so i dont care about stuff like working with other people or writing boring software

# ? Jan 5, 2015 16:54

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

i think they could have survived being tied down to lisp even, if they hadn't been boneheadedly tried to do hardware

they were kinda stuck on the hardware thing

all of their competitive advantages over unix lisp vendors had to do with their full stack: lisp tools running on the lisp os with a lisp kernel and a tagged-memory hardware architecture.

when they realized their hardware was uncompetitive, their only realistic choice was to write a virtual machine, emulating the tagged-memory arch on top of compaq alpha. there was no easy way to keep the entire stack intact without going that direction

it was too late for mass acceptance by then, anyway.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 16:54

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

the lisp vendors were all chucklefucks, and their commitments to open systems were too little, too late. common lisp, the first realistic attempt to make lisp portable, might have been a really big deal if it happened in 1984 instead of 1994. (or if the reference implementation had run on a hardware architecture universities kept in computer labs...)

but that's not how it happened

# ? Jan 5, 2015 16:55

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple on pizzadog derangement syndrome

there are enough programming languages. The constant toolchain churn is far worse than just learning to work around the defects in your existing tools.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 17:27

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

also most of the defects don't actually exist or are self inflicted (ex: using a text editor instead of an ide)

# ? Jan 5, 2015 17:30

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

Shaggar posted:

(ex: using a text editor instead of an ide)

this was me for way too long. :negative:

# ? Jan 5, 2015 18:12

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

in the case of lisp the main answer is incompetent vendors

e.g. symbolics went down over a real estate deal. and the less said about Xerox or TI the better.

that and lisp users

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:43

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

they had a successful graphics business. (this later became mirai.)

they sold the poo poo out of macsyma, the original symbolic math package. mathematica was a straight-up clone of macsyma.

they made embedded/realtime stuff for AT&T.

for some reason hypertext was a market that people paid money for in the 1980s, and symbolics was both able and willing to sell hypertext authoring/browsing systems

Note that none of these products have "and it runs Lisp" anywhere in them. Except for all the computers that they made which ran Lisp, which didn't sell.

Lisp isn't a product, and the "something something BUT WITH LISP!" isn't a great business strategy.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:47

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

that and lisp users.

imagine working with someone with the engineering dicipline of tbc and the smugness of shaggar and the self awareness of paul graham

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:50

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Suspicious Dish posted:

Note that none of these products have "and it runs Lisp" anywhere in them. Except for all the computers that they made which ran Lisp, which didn't sell.

Lisp isn't a product, and the "something something BUT WITH LISP!" isn't a great business strategy.

all these products were written for and ran on symbolics hardware/software stack

they probably could not have been written quickly, at the time, on the alternative stacks that existed, at the time.

"something something BUT WITH LISP!" is really "something something developed on our relatively sophisticated software stack that will happily run on a machine suitable to office use"

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:50

Blotto Skorzany: Nov 7, 2008; He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

you know tef, that whole rant was fun but i don't see how anyone could call naggum's mind "placid" (well it might be now i guess, requiescat in pace)

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:55

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

they were kinda stuck on the hardware thing

all of their competitive advantages over unix lisp vendors had to do with their full stack: lisp tools running on the lisp os with a lisp kernel and a tagged-memory hardware architecture.

when they realized their hardware was uncompetitive, their only realistic choice was to write a virtual machine, emulating the tagged-memory arch on top of compaq alpha. there was no easy way to keep the entire stack intact without going that direction

it was too late for mass acceptance by then, anyway.

my argument is more that they should have just gone all-out on an open common lisp stack and tried to properly commercialize the rather impressive series of actual applications they produced

it may not have been easy, or terribly flattering, to see, but tossing out the lisp kernel and windowing system with the hardware would have lost them little in actual practical commercial edge, since you don't need them to run a good lisp 3d graphics stack or symbolic maths stack or object-oriented database etc

as has been noted, common lisp was way way late, but it is actually a really really good standard. if it had been earlier and had some applications relying on it early it probably could have taken up a java-like market position. not that lisp is some fantastic productivity marvel, but it is solidly high-level without much nonsense, and cl had a lot of poo poo figured out

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:55

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

my argument is more that they should have just gone all-out on an open common lisp stack and tried to properly commercialize the rather impressive series of actual applications they produced

open systems was definitely a problem for all the lisp vendors. the only vendors who were serious about openness were running on unix. and they were the least capable.

it was like the unix wars, but even more senseless. a bunch of firms fighting over operating system bullshit while running businesses that were not really about selling operating systems

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

it may not have been easy, or terribly flattering, to see, but tossing out the lisp kernel and windowing system with the hardware would have lost them little in actual practical commercial edge, since you don't need them to run a good lisp 3d graphics stack or symbolic maths stack or object-oriented database etc

throwing away the OS stack was gonna be a tall order

i think you may underestimate just how alien these systems were. unix, windows, and mainframe z/OS are straight-up clones of each other compared to a lisp machine.

symbolics systems didn't even have a useful kernel/userspace distinction. you could step the
debugger straight through from your app to the OS to a hardware driver.

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

not that lisp is some fantastic productivity marvel, but it is solidly high-level without much nonsense, and cl had a lot of poo poo figured out

in the early 1980s it was nothing short of miraculous. the state of the art in an IBM shop was literally marking up paper printouts. symbolics had hypertext and interactive debuggers while unix had 'ed'

Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 5, 2015

# ? Jan 5, 2015 20:59

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

common lisp's abridged standard came to 1500 pages

inside that 1500 pages they couldn't agree on how generic streams worked. in 2014 common lisp programs rely on non-standard extensions to define stream types other than a file.

and i think file paths are like 1000 pages of the 1500 page standard. don't even try to portably write a file in CL, it's not worth your life.

# ? Jan 5, 2015 21:10

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

tef posted:

that and lisp users

and also the lisp programming language not being very good or useful

# ? Jan 5, 2015 21:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 12:37

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

Blotto Skorzany posted:

you know tef, that whole rant was fun but i don't see how anyone could call naggum's mind "placid" (well it might be now i guess, requiescat in pace)

wasn't calling naggum placid :ssh:

# ? Jan 5, 2015 21:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

«‹›1784 »