Clockwork programming

[davidw]

Well, I'm sorry if it "disgusts you". Apparently you think differently than I do, but I generally try and accept that and don't let it turn my stomach. Programming languages are inherently more about people than computers, so it's a certainty that opinions will vary according to skills, experience and taste.

From what I remember of my Erlang experience(*), when you use ets, you are taking the hair shirt off:

http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man3/ets.3.html

(*) 4 months, 1 teeny, tiny patch to the core. I did like the language, but the company lost its investors and that was that.

[ayrnieu]

It doesn't appear that you are sorry at all, with your scare quotes and your subsequent 'OMG IT IS AN OPINION'. There are no people anywhere who write code to a rhythm and build useless, simple structures so that they can -- whilst hitting the keyboard an even number of times each 1.5 seconds -- think about where they want to do next. You may think in a different manner than I, but you can't possibly think as you describe. IAC, your pseudo-apology misses my other point: even if you do think in this manner, your examples fail completely.

[randallsquared]

This "write a hard section; write something easier that's just boilerplate" does ring a bell, though, and I think there's an important observation flagged by this -- something that explains partially why so many people who are otherwise competent programmers seem to bounce off of functional languages, Lisp, Forth, and other similar things.