Comment by sklogic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sklogic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Evidently you talk hyper-enthusiastically (and with the wrong terminology) for things even seasoned Lispers and Schemers don't, not to mention that your "magic bullet" praises are far from being computer science.

And again, evidently, you've got no idea what proper meta-languages are (i.e., featuring a static compile-time metaprograming with a full, again, compile-time reflection). And yes, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that even majority of Lisp users got no clue how to use metaprogramming properly.

> You say it like you mean it, which means you don't understand the importance of syntax, semantics, type systems, and several more concerns

Obviously you do not understand metaprogramming. I do not care at all about syntax, semantics, type systems and all that of a host meta-language. I can build any combination of this stuff on top, easily. Of course as long as the host language is not trying hard to break things - this is what separate a proper metalanguage from an inferior one.

> (not to mention pragmatic issues like ecosystem and tooling).

Again, you do not understand metaprogramming at all. Once you start parasiting on any given language you're getting all of its ecosystem and tooling in, for free.

> You also yield "metalanguage" like its conventional CS wisdom that being a metalanguage is some magic bullet trait, that makes it "superior simply by definition".

I gave a definition, if you did not notice. A meta-language is the one which can be turned into any possible language, statically.

> which would also include things like Antlr, m4, PEG, transpiler generators, and such, for which there's nothing "superior" to a conventional language.

I gave my definition, which (conveniently) fits Lisp in.

> Not sure were you picked the terminology up, probably some book or article, but it doesn't mean what you think it means

Not sure you know it better.

> you've got no idea [...] Obviously you do not understand [...] you did not notice

Please don't conduct programming language flamewars on HN. Discourse here must remain civil and substantive, even when the other person is also being rude (as in fact is the case). Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You're being downvoted because you're breaking this rule, not because of your argument. This community is replete with lovers of Lisp, including the person who built HN and us who work on it, so that's hardly the issue.

If there's one thing we will never allow to happen it's HN turning out like comp.lang.lisp.

Edit: I've detached this subthread and marked it off topic. Your thoughts on Lisp are welcome here, but please be respectful from now on. The Principle of Charity is what we shoot for in arguments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity.

>You're being downvoted because you're breaking this rule, not because of your argument.

If that was the case I wouldn't be being upvoted (as I'm, as you said "also rude"), but I am. So I maintain that the downvotes to the parent was for the content (or the content too), not merely the tone.

That said, I take some offense into that I was "rude".

I merely replied in a much kinder tone to the parent comment that wrote "downvote count = a number of people who got no clue what meta language is". That initial tone provoked my response.

When that was shot down with "you got no clue either", I came back with further explanation -- to which I got his response that you commented on.

In any case, apart from the tone, for which I can apologize, do you agree, on the technical and CS side, with what the parent wrote?

I'd be happier to have this conversation privately but there isn't much of an option when accounts have no email address. I bet I could convince you of the below if we were sitting opposite one another over a fine beer, but this channel is pretty limited. But let me try.

I like and appreciate a great many of your comments and think you're a net positive contributor to HN, who has significantly enhanced the intellectual diversity of the site over the years (on a lot of things if not programming languages!). Unfortunately, your comments have also often been abrasive in a way that at best skirts the HN guidelines and sometimes plainly violates them. I wish you would work on eliminating that.

On a large public forum, when someone is a good writer and makes cogent points and is abrasive, it gives license to everyone who isn't a good writer and doesn't make cogent points to just (begging your pardon) pee in the pool. It's a destabilizing influence. Being right makes it worse.

Considering that what we're shooting for on HN is an internet version of reversing the arrow of entropy, i.e. hard, I wish you'd join in with that and help. It would benefit you too, since the community would suck less. Other users have done so. I'm one of them; I used to deliberately mix a little abrasion into my HN comments because I thought they would be lukewarm without it and I value lively language. But that was before I understood the dynamics of a large public forum. A large public forum has to be a bit bland because otherwise the riffraff will ruin it*. Blandness is the price we pay to avoid worse.

Re the current thread? I doubt it makes sense to litigate the details, but FWIW I at most partly agree with the author. I think Lisp metaprogramming has significant advantages, but he overstated his case, and that plus being rude, then lashing out at downvoters, is guaranteed to attract more downvotes. Your comments were less rude and advocated a more conventional view, so it isn't surprising that users preferred them. I mentioned the rudeness on both sides not to equate the two, but to point out that the HN guidelines still apply even when one is being provoked. In fact that's when they apply most. Otherwise everyone can invoke the "I merely" defense and down we all go.

* (Edit: I meant this playfully, but in retrospect it sounds nasty. The point is that the fun kind of abrasive language—pointed, witty sparring—rapidly gets drowned out by blunt crudeness when the group is large.)

>I wish you would work on eliminating that.

I'll give it a try!

(I'm from a place that we like our debates heated and our coffee iced :-)).

And yet you keep proving that you in particular still cannot understand what static metaprogramming is, even after all my patient, kind explanations. So I was right after all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com