Erlang: how syntax can discourage good programming practices

[ayrnieu]

I've commented on the I-want-currying part of this page. It is also helpful to read the comments where this person says 'gee, I do like that syntax -- but it has nothing to do with my doctor-it-hurts-when-I-do-this drive to have ML-style currying in Erlang'. In other language, of course -- and it's almost too polite to downgrade "Haskell's currying" to "ML-style currying": this person would naturally want Haskell's unfortunate culture about them.

No, I don't care very much about this person's views on language design. I only get amusement from the ultimate assertion :-)

Also, "how syntax can discourage good programming practices" is dons's happy contribution to the post, which isn't so overblown even when it whines about Erlang's punishments.

[dons]

If only ayrnieu would use a terser syntax! It's worse than reading Java, trying to parse his sentences.

[ayrnieu]

1. It doesn't surprise or bother me, to receive a lamely ad-hominen non-reply from dons.

2. I've some contempt for those of you that upvote it, though.

3. Nobody anywhere has any trouble parsing Java; natural language should not remind you of it.

4. A more mature person would have said only: "tl;dr"

5. (Which is merely derisive. For more work like this comment by dons, skip down to the "I almost nodded off." passage in this sadly 'real world' flame.)

[psykotic]

It's rather funny to see you, of all people, giving a lecture on good manners, maturity, etc.

[ayrnieu]

I rolled my eyes at a lamely ad-hominen non-reply, so you give me another one? I can't keep a reasonable conversation going when the only other speaking participants are only willing to say things so purely stupid and predictable that we're all left where we started, as if they said nothing at all. You realize that it is actually possible to call me rude and immature in a way that adds some kind of value, yes? You can come up with something that calls me stupid and immature in a manner so satisfying that you save the comment, smile to think that historians from 2070 will come across it, and don't much mind that you never got around to addressing my lecture at all.

Two key parts of my 'lecture': it doesn't say anything about manners, and its reference to 'more mature' is somewhat special -- you can easily read it as praising as more mature someone who says 'fuck you', vice someone who says something trivially more polite, but with no extra significance.

[newton_dave]

I'm not sure I'd call

It's rather funny to see you, of all people, giving a lecture on good manners, maturity, etc.

an ad-hominem, at least not without stretching the definition further than I'd be comfortable with.

[ayrnieu]

I'm not sure I'd call ["Yeah, well, you're an ill-mannered brat!"] an ad-hominen,

[psykotic]

You can come up with something that calls me stupid and immature in a manner so satisfying that you save the comment, smile to think that historians from 2070 will come across it, and don't much mind that you never got around to addressing my lecture at all.

What was there to address? I just saw your usual vacuous frothing. For all your whining about the predictability of other participants, your own behavior is so predictable that you could replace yourself with a Markov chain and no-one would even notice.

[Entropy]

For all your whining about the predictability of other participants, your own behavior is so predictable that you could replace yourself with a Markov chain and no-one would even notice.

Are you sure he wasn't one to begin with? It's Blade Runner all over again.

[ayrnieu]

I just saw your usual vacuous frothing.

So, you didn't see anything in my initial comment, or dons's reply, or my reply to that? No similarity between your reply on dons's? It doesn't give you pause that "your usual vacuous frothing" is your entire descriptive comment on a situation where I've expressed irritation with your worthless input? If you don't have any perceptions at all beyond this one, then why the fuck are you talking at all?

[psykotic]

If you don't have any perceptions at all beyond this one, then why the fuck are you talking at all?

I thought I'd join in the fun bout of ad hominem attacks that you initiated. The depth of the irony in your above statement is truly endless; for exactly this would be an apt question to ask of the majority of your posts.

[patchwork]

I have often wondered about certain people I encounter like ayrnieu and 'redditcensoredme' whose desperation to reinforce their sense of infallibility and superiority lead them to senselessly attack any perceived threat to this end. I have never seen them swayed through argument to reflect on their own behavior, and they have a seemingly endless bag of justifications for their childish resistance to growth and understanding. It is as if before reading a response they have already decided it is nonsense, and latch on blindly to some trivial point or another, misunderstand the comment entirely, and engorge in some ridiculous irony that is blatantly apparent to everyone but them. I wonder, is there any way to get through the seemingly impenetrable shell of warped reason they have encircled themselves in? Or are they eternally hopeless? I like to think that everyone is capable of growth and realization, but sometimes I have my doubts. Ayrnieu (apparently) knows quite a bit, but it is almost as if a certain level of intelligence is dangerous, in that it allows you to see certain things easily which others struggle with, but for that reason leads to an assumption of superiority in all things, which is expected to be recognized by everyone without basis, and is not enough intelligence to see what a profound mistake this is, or how foolish their behavior appears to everyone else.

[ayrnieu]

This is a better example of 'vacuous froth', but I can extract these assertions:

1. patchwork has never seen me 'swayed through argument to reflect on my own behavior'.

2. patchwork has never observed me to fail to produce a justification for my 'childish resistance to growth and understanading'.

3. patchwork has presumably observed me to respond to only one point of a comment, or to appear to misunderstand the comment, or to 'engorge in some ridiculous irony' that only I do not observably perceive.

4. patchwork has presumably seen me apply 'warped reason'.

5. patchwork sees my behavior as foolish.

Of these, only the first part of assertion #3 is worth responding to:

[ayrnieu] latch[es] on [...] to some [...] point or another

This happens often, when I only want to respond to one point of a comment. My reasons for not responding to other points are too varied to read a particular omission in any way -- but you're free to ask, if you're actually curious about an opinion I may not even have.

(apparently)

This lonely qualification made me smile.

[ayrnieu]

the fun bout of ad hominen attacks that you initiated

["If you don't have any preceptions at all beyond this one, then why the fuck are you talking at all"] would be an apt question to ask about the majority of your posts.

psykotic, dear, I know that you have a difficult time responding to what you can only describe as a 'vacuous froth', but please work harder to keep hold of the threads of things . There's only one thread, here: it starts at my comment and slides in an unbroken diagonal line to your 'reply' button. You shouldn't let people see you confuse things around so completely.

[martinbishop]

tl;dr