News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by aaron-lebo on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @12:39PM (#9577493)
Why is being pragmatic not intellectually reasonable?
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by mbrock on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @02:16PM (#9578103)
I'm not saying being "pragmatic" in this way is "bad" or "wrong," and since this is pretty much a total derail, I'll stop engaging in this thread. But, like, this is the actual thing you said that I was responding to:

"the intellectually reasonable position for most people is to either ignore lisp or laugh at it"

I said that such a position has nothing to do with "intellectual reasonableness" because it's barely an intellectual position at all. There is no propositional content; there is very little thought involved at all; it's a default "meh" position that is more accurately labelled "laziness."

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by gknoy on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @01:17PM (#9577730)
One should not sneer or laugh at languages like Perl, COBOL, or similar, simply because there are others we like better, or are more popular.

I used to be a HUGE Perl fan, and discounted Python for years. I figured that I already knew Java, and since Python and Perl were effectively similar, it was a waste of my time to study both. I now regret that. As formative as that was for my growth as a programmer, I've loved coding in Python more than almost any other language -- and I delayed that discovery by a decade because I wrote it off as "effectively the same as" Perl.

Sure, it was pragmatic to focus on one language that I was learning and using. But the reasons I did so were flawed, IMO.