
Blub by Convention (In Defense of Arc) - jonnytran
http://plpatterns.com/post/231830654/blub-by-convention-in-defense-of-arc
======
raganwald
The author seems sensitive to the argument that Arc is "just" a bunch of
macros. To me saying that Arc is "just" macros is like saying that Haskell is
"just" a translator that rewrites functional programs into Von Neumann
instructions.

No, I am wrong. Saying that Arc is just a bunch of macros is saying that the
difficulty of the implementation is more important than the value provided by
the resulting product. It seems very close to arguing that OS X is equivalent
to Windows because they both run on PCs. There may be an argument that Arc
doesn't break new ground or introduce new semantics or that it doesn't make it
easy to solve a problem that other PLs have a difficult time solving. But
"just a bunch of macros" is not that argument.

I wouldn't bother with an entire blog post just to refute it.

------
silentbicycle
While it sounds like he's trying to make a point, it's practically impossible
to have a meaningful discussion about language expressiveness when a major
party in the discussion is essentially arguing that _anybody who doesn't use
their pet languages is thinking in baby talk_. It's _incredibly_
condescending, and drags the entire discussion down into name calling.

(For a previous thread criticizing "The Blub Paradox":
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=630094>)

~~~
cia_plant
But what if a large part of the 'debate' is _in actual fact_ just people
senselessly defending inferior systems, because they don't know what they're
talking about? Are we supposed to pretend otherwise, for the sake of civility?

~~~
silentbicycle
Calling them an idiot isn't going to make them curious about conceptual blind
spots they may have inherited from their primary language, just encourage them
to ignore you.

~~~
cia_plant
If their inclination is to ignore people who know more than they do about a
topic, then they are more or less hopeless. I don't think that people should
be shy about discussing what is actually the case with languages, just because
some people won't react in a reasonable way to the suggestion that some
languages are more advanced than others.

~~~
silentbicycle
Well, the problem is that the whole "blub" stance is akin to breaking the ice
by punching someone in the face, and then getting all shocked when they think
you're a thug and don't want to listen to your pitch about the metric system.
It's not a stance that invites discussion.

You can encourage discussion about language design, etc. without being smug
and intentionally provocative about it.

------
mahmud
I will be generous and assume this is by someone just new to programming
language research, Lisp, or just programming in general.

The entire essay is tongue-tied and appeals to the gentle reader's kindness
and forgiveness, instead of saying something.

------
fogus
Maybe it's just me (most likely), but I didn't understand the punchline.

~~~
pchristensen
Codifying best practices into a language core is worth doing and should not be
dismissed just because nothing new or groundbreaking was invented.

A similar statement could be made about Ruby on Rails. Nothing
groundbreakingly new but many useful conventions tied together by rule created
a new, more powerful experience.

~~~
jonnytran
Thank you. For a second, I was afraid the post didn't communicate what I
intended.

Do you have any suggestions as to how I could have communicated this better?

~~~
raganwald
A fellow is going to a concert. Realizing he is lost, he stops a passing
musician. "How do you get to Carnagie Hall?" he asks. The musician answers
quickly: "Practice, practice, practice."

Keep writing. Be mindful of the feedback you receive, but there is very little
need to squeeze even more feedback from each post. Just keep writing.

~~~
Afton
The second paragraph is remarkably good general advice.

