Re:The Python Paradox is now the Scala Paradox
by plinkplonk on Saturday September 19, 2009 @10:17AM
(#831983)
"PG built Viaweb in Lisp because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then."
First, you were the one suggesting we don't use Ruby or Python, in 2009 in the name of "stability". and now you are saying PG would have used these "unstable" languages in 1995 "if they existed" which brings me to
"because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then."
You are wrong.
ViaWeb was started in 1995
Perl was available (and being used to build websites) in 1995. Python was available too. Do your research before making ridiculous claims!
As PG says in one of his essays (link below)
"During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of job descriptions. A new competitor seemed to emerge out of the woodwork every month or so. The first thing I would do, after checking to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about and which not to. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers."
;-)
You go on to say,
"If there is excellent rationale for picking an esoteric language, I'd love to hear it."
"In fact, choosing a more powerful language probably decreases the size of the team you need, because (a) if you use a more powerful language you probably won't need as many hackers, and (b) hackers who work in more advanced languages are likely to be smarter."
He (and others) have written a lot about this. Again, do your research. You may or may not agree with the rationale he puts forward, but you undermine your own argument when you make up things to strengthen it (like perl not existing in 1995).
First, you were the one suggesting we don't use Ruby or Python, in 2009 in the name of "stability". and now you are saying PG would have used these "unstable" languages in 1995 "if they existed" which brings me to
"because there was no Ruby, Python or Perl back then."
You are wrong.
ViaWeb was started in 1995
Perl was available (and being used to build websites) in 1995. Python was available too. Do your research before making ridiculous claims!
As PG says in one of his essays (link below)
"During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of job descriptions. A new competitor seemed to emerge out of the woodwork every month or so. The first thing I would do, after checking to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about and which not to. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers."
;-)
You go on to say,
"If there is excellent rationale for picking an esoteric language, I'd love to hear it."
Start with the PG essay I quoted above, http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html
many nice points there, for e.g:
"In fact, choosing a more powerful language probably decreases the size of the team you need, because (a) if you use a more powerful language you probably won't need as many hackers, and (b) hackers who work in more advanced languages are likely to be smarter."
He (and others) have written a lot about this. Again, do your research. You may or may not agree with the rationale he puts forward, but you undermine your own argument when you make up things to strengthen it (like perl not existing in 1995).