Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Jul 2013 14:06 UTC
General Development "There is a reason I use 'old' languages like J or Lush. It's not a retro affectation; I save that for my suits. These languages are designed better than modern ones. There is some survivor bias here; nobody slings PL/1 or Cobol willingly, but modern language and package designers don't seem to learn much from the masters. Modern code monkeys don't even recognize mastery; mastery is measured in dollars or number of users, which is a poor substitute for distinguishing between what is good and what is dumb. Lady Gaga made more money than Beethoven, but, like, so what?" This isn't just a thing among programmers. The entire industry is obsessed with user numbers, number of applications, and other crap that is meaningless when you consider programming to be art. When I post a new item about some small hobby operating system, the comments will be filled with negativity because it's no Windows or iOS, whereas only ten years ago, we'd have lively discussions about the implementation details. And then people wonder why that scene has died out.
Permalink for comment 568177
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Forgotten past
by Treza on Sun 28th Jul 2013 14:38 UTC
Member since:

Every young programmer must try oldies like Lisp and Smalltalk. This is an eye opening experience.
This is also, in a way, very saddening as it shows how much nothing has really evolved, or evolved in a bad way.

A recent Smalltalk implementation, SQUEAK was for me quite a revelation a few years ago.
When Apple 'borrowed' the GUI at Xerox, they tucked it into static languages (C, Pascal), to cope with slow hardware. They also ingrained the idea that applications are monolithic pieces of code.

The web languages, Python or Objective-C don't have the brilliant coherence of Smalltalk and Lisp Machines.

Reply Score: 3