> The Gang of Four book exists because Java made functions second-class citizens
Why do people write silly things like this? GoF was published in 1995, the same year Java was first released, and includes neither Java code nor any mention of Java. Java had no influence on that book.
iLemming, your reply is [dead] and I don't know why. Responding to parts of it:
> Peter Norvig made this argument explicitly in 1998, showing 16 of 23 patterns are "invisible or simpler" in Lisp
The GoF book even mentions this so Norvig's presentation is a useful read, but even the authors of the book knew it was true. It's not like he added a new idea with that bit you quoted, the useful parts of the presentation were which patterns became invisible or simpler and why.
> Let's try not to nitpick on literal wording to avoid engaging with the substance, could we?
I responded to a common, but false, claim. Don't make false claims and I won't call you out for it.
You can replace Java there with pretty much any OOP language, where functions are not first-class citizens, and it will still be true. There are no "false claims" here. The main point is valid. We have orchestrated an entire industry around "objects", while much simpler abstractions have already existed. You probably just have not experienced the "true" nature of Lisp, where you can interactively change any behavior of the running program, directly from your editor, without linking, linting, compiling, restarting or even saving the code you type. The process is an enormously joyful experience, it feels like playing a video game. You probably have little idea of what we've lost and what we've gained from the industry heavily tilting towards OOP.
>> The Gang of Four book exists because Java made functions second-class citizens
That is a false claim. You asserted a causal relationship between Java and the content of the GoF book that does not exist without time travel.
> You probably just have not experienced the "true" nature of Lisp, where you can interactively change any behavior of the running program, directly from your editor, without linking, linting, compiling, restarting or even saving the code you type.
OMG. You got me. I'm so, so sorry you caught me spreading lies about your precious programming language (or your favorite book, I don't know what you're trying to protect more). Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the diligent work of protecting the truth and keeping this place free of disinformation. Please send me a DM with your mailing address and I'll send you a medal, shipping cost included.
> Sure buddy. You know so much about me...
I should have checked your comment history first before making assumptions. Please accept my apologies if I sounded patronizing. Shouldn't be an excuse for my tone, in my defense I could say: "I said 'probably'". Still disagree with you overly correcting me since I firmly believe the overall notion of my original comment is correct. Thus I won't remove my snarky, sarcastic paragraph above.
> Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated).
I believe in a country where the top 75% or so of people vote and that directly influences the administration of government. You want a country where 100% of people vote, but their vote is merely a suggestion to the credentialed professionals and lawyers that actually run the country. I am by far the more egalitarian one.
Sure, if you think Americans are sheep to be herded—what Woodrow Wilson called the “unphilosophical bulk of humanity”—by credentialed experts who make the important decisions, you have no problem with the dumbest, least responsible people voting. Because in your model voting is just a signal of approval/disapproval, not genuine self governance. You can’t afford to do that if you think the effect of people’s votes should be direct and not filtered through an expert class that second guesses them.
In your proposed change to who can vote, you'd not be able to vote and neither would your children. Does that mean you believe that you, and they, are part of the "unphilosophical bulk of humanity"? That you and they are among "the dumbest, least responsible people"?
I guess you don't even believe your own credentials as a lawyer make you qualified to vote.
No accounts (except the actual admins/mods) can see upvote counts on comments. That was a deliberate choice from a long time ago for reasons expressed at the time (by pg, IIRC) that I can't seem to locate now. The site originally made them public, but eventually made them private.
> I actually don't remember how you're supposed to know about https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc. I'm pretty sure it's not linked on the main page and the input box doesn't make mention of it.
It's in the FAQ, linked at the bottom of (almost) every page along with the guidelines.
Why do people write silly things like this? GoF was published in 1995, the same year Java was first released, and includes neither Java code nor any mention of Java. Java had no influence on that book.
reply