

Why Java (and almost every other programming language) sucks - steiger
http://www.perkiset.org/forum/pythonlispschemeerlangobscurities/why_java_and_almost_every_other_programming_language_sucks_lisp-t26.0.html;msg57#msg57

======
gdp
I kinda switched off before the flame-bait portion even started.

The first few paragraphs of text appear to be confusing Lisp/Scheme with
'functional programming' as a paradigm, and making an argument about one using
the other. There would be nothing easier about "modifying the way the compiler
generates code" in OCaml than in C or anything else (assuming a well-written
compiler in each case).

------
brazzy
Is there really a difference between a macro and a method or class definition
that makes languages supporting both fundamentally more powerful than
languages supporting only the latter?

This "extending the syntax of the language" looks just like defining a class
or method to me; maybe because Lisp doesn't really have much syntax.

------
pmichaud
This is a rehash of lisp's meta programming abilities. We get it, with lisp
you build the language.

------
raganwald
Three blog posts I'd love to read (and one that I wouldn't):

[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/10/three-blog-posts-id-
love...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/10/three-blog-posts-id-love-to-read-
and.html)

------
brtzsnr
.next() makes sense when you think that generators are also iterables and must
support the corresponding interface.

having () and .next() would violate Python philosophy: only one way to do it.

------
ilyak
That's like steve yegge's <http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/lisp-wins>
Except written by a teenager (in the bad meaning of that word).

------
onreact-com
Why submissions titled "why x sucks" suck?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838969>

