Re:Boilerplate code says a lot about a language...
by hga on Monday October 01, 2007 @04:21AM
(#61531)
The AntiPatterns book says (without citation, although this seems to match my personal observations) that only 1 in 5 programmers "get" abstraction.
This has a lot of implications; they pointed out the one for "democratic" design processes (those with a clue get outvoted, thus the architecture of so many systems is garbage), but this obviously extends to this "LISP is a ball of mud" (Moses) approach of designing and implementing a small language in which to program most of your stuff.
And in any language. LISP is used as an example since this is its natural style of use and it's lot easier, but if you can't get the proper abstractions agreed upon in the first place, it matters little how good or bad the language you'll then try to implement them in, boiler plate style or LISP....
This has a lot of implications; they pointed out the one for "democratic" design processes (those with a clue get outvoted, thus the architecture of so many systems is garbage), but this obviously extends to this "LISP is a ball of mud" (Moses) approach of designing and implementing a small language in which to program most of your stuff.
And in any language. LISP is used as an example since this is its natural style of use and it's lot easier, but if you can't get the proper abstractions agreed upon in the first place, it matters little how good or bad the language you'll then try to implement them in, boiler plate style or LISP....