Hacker News Reader

Comment by Godhelpworld | Hacker News Reader

I am sorry to comment harshly but this is most WTF article which i have ever read!

To quote the Author """ Specifically, a large number of developers seem to think that they have the right to make software for the iPhone (or for anything else) in Flash, or in another high-level environment of their choosing. Literally, the right, not just the convenience or the opportunity. And many of them are quite churlish about the matter """

I mean come on! Some one write a translator which converts code from one language to another! And stupid tactics are being used by Apple to stop it!

Does this person does not know about the Turing Completeness of programming languages??? It does not matter which programming language you use as long as it is Turing complete!

The article goes on to make dubious arguments about computational creativity on different platforms which make totally no sense!

View on HN

"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis

I think this is the point of the OP, obscured somewhat by the discussion of 3.3.1 (IMO). While in theory everything is possible with every language, each "worthwhile" language affects the way you think about programming. Idiomatic Ruby makes you think about extremely late binding of behaviour. Flash and Processing make you think about drawing on a canvas (in different ways!). Idiomatic Lisp makes you think about programs as data. And so forth.

I think it matters very much which programming language you use, and I can demonstrate this. Let's have a programming contest. You may choose what we are to build. You may pick a domain in which you are comfortable. I may choose the language you use, provided it is Turing-complete.

My issue with article is that it makes arument that programming style is decided by the interface or the device which in case of a device like IPAD is totaly false!

Yes Thinking in Scheme is different than in C++ but Some programs are more suited to be written in a functional language. And that has no bearing on whether the device is an ipad or a PC.

Interfaces dont define the programming style to be used! Underlying Problem does! And thanks to Apple you cant use a FP language on ipad!

Turing-completeness of programming languages is pretty irrelevant: different languages make some kinds of things easier or harder, support some idioms and discourage others, tend towards certain kinds of programming, etc. That's why programming in Haskell, Ruby, C, and asm are not all identical in practice, even though in theory any program written in one could be written in any other. And yes, they do support different kinds of computational creativity.

Yeah i know they are different but when one has created a bridge between two languages, disallowing it for some non nonsensical reasons of "computational creativity" seems utterly stupid to me!

What if i wrote a haskell to C++ converter and Microsoft (Wait Apple already did that) banned it because it only wants you to use OO programmin!! Also we know that Haskell/Lisp/Scheme are more suited toward certain applications!

Still do you agree that Haskell or Scheme is "bad" for IPAd just because it has a touch interface???

> Some one write a translator which converts code from one language to another! And stupid tactics are being used by Apple to stop it!

a) Why are the tactics 'stupid'? Justify that statement.

b) OP's main argument here is that no programmer is entitled to the 'right' to be able to make software for the iPhone in an environment of their choosing. He goes on to argue that different languages/environments serve different purposes, and it would do programmers good to pick up these different environments. Your response ("I mean come on!") does not address this point in any way.

c) It is implicit in understanding programming languages that they have very different approaches to different problems. Some programmers call this 'forms of thinking' as in 'the Lisp form of thinking' (or something equivalent, I really should check the vocab on this). Programming languages are more than just Turing Complete. They're a lens through which you view problems. Most times such lenses are very important.

> The article goes on to make dubious arguments about computational creativity on different platforms which make totally no sense!

d) Why are the arguments dubious? Why does his point about computational creativity on different platforms not make sense?

OP has provided us with coherent, well-written, and justified arguments. Your post, on the other hand, is filled with one-line assertions.

Please rectify this. You are not contributing to the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com