jjames

The theory surrounding homeopathy would suggest that would only be useful for curing extreme and persistent drunkenness.

I resent the suggestion that python has weaseled its way into anything. It rather slithers, wouldn't you say?

Just to be more more pedantic (and silly), urban dictionary has this to say:

Used to describe two things that are independent of each other. One does not imply the other.

"Common sense and intelligence are orthogonal. I've seen plenty of smart people with no common sense."

This is exactly why people who learn multiple programming languages/paradigms are so valuable to these types of conversations. The problem is that reasoned and experienced thought gets thrown out with the speculative garbage.

Explicit function calling via () is one of my favorite things in the language. To each their own.

"exit" merely references a function. It doesn't call by name alone. It can thus be passed to a function (a callback for example), saved to a variable, etc for later calling. Maybe not so useful for the exit function in the interactive shell but very useful for functional programming. This is an example of consistency, sometimes at the expense of convenience; not great for hacking, awesome for collaboration and large projects (imo).

>>> dir(exit)

['__call__', '__class__', '__delattr__', '__dict__', '__doc__', '__getattribute__', '__hash__', '__init__', '__module__', '__new__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__setattr__', '__str__', '__weakref__', 'name']

(pardon the dunderware)

Here's another way to exit the interactive shell ;)

>>> exit.__call__()

Serious tease. I expected either the text available online, lecture videos or at the very least a courseware podcast from Berkeley. I guess I'll go back to staring at it at the bookstore...

I'm getting a 404 message that is trying to sell me novelty gifts.

Good point. There could be a language that made 0 trade-offs "that matter" vs all other languages. The problem remains that there will likely still exist at least one person for whom some trade-off of little or no substance is important (even essential).

When people talk about power, elegance and abstraction of a language (not compiler, VM, libraries, etc) they are talking about the language platformed on the human brain (something unique to the individual). Ruby targets a certain brain platform while C targets a different one and Scala yet another. Twitter engineers sound like they have brains appropriate for both Ruby and Scala. Scala makes less technical trade-offs toward their end and so there arises a clear winner (for them).

The day we're all using the same brain platform then there could be argued to exist a best language.

The "()" thing is something that personally clicks with me in python. I absolutely love methodname as reference always, methodname() as function call always. I'm fetishistic about predictability though.

To your main point, all general purpose languages are good enough at everything. That's how they get to be called "general purpose". But, I would argue that there are 0 languages that are great for everything. There is no language that can be shown to have 0 tradoffs when compared to all other languages.

The thing that often gets over-looked with Ruby is the trade off that many other languages make of developer time and enthusiasm (happiness, comfort, engagement, morale, etc). If you don't believe those factors exist or that they have little value then the trade off the language makes to afford those features is lost in translation.

To make a crude analogy: if I were hiring to get a company off the ground I would love to find a single person to do all of the product concepts, design, implementation, sales, accounting, legal work and support. The problem is that the jack of all trades is master of none and you're likely to get some creative concepting all over your accounting. Languages specialize in thousands of ways over the growth of the language (and hopefully consciously) - much like people do with education and career development. Even at times under the guise of general purposeness.

This is all to say that unfortunately your wanting a language that is great for everything is impossible. But, you might find a language that is good enough at all of the trade-offs you care about without ever trading off all the other things you care about and for all projects for all time.

I'm not super familiar with pg's RSS feed but doesn't it just provide a link to the article? That doesn't bypass the click-through to the content provider. It encourages it, just like the HN homepage.

Is there any concern here for the missed click-throughs for content creators for purposes of metrics and/or advertising revenue?

I've not been in a situation to have to worry about either but I know that site owners make a conscious decision when they formulate the contents of their own RSS feeds. Some clearly don't want to provide all the goods in feed readers without an ad stream to compliment it.

I haven't gone through a lot of the feed yet so I apologize if I am missing some way you've already addressed this.

Regardless, Thanks! I really appreciate this feed.

Article is from 04/07. Is there any followup? It's not clear from all the commentary whether the author learned something from the anonymous solicitation of advice or if it served primarily as catharsis.

For anyone else living like this individual, I particularly agree with the commenters who mention taking up photography to get you out into the world creating art without abandoning a detail/tech-centric tendency.

"I've always had this image of MIT students that doesn't quite mesh with them needing a gentle introduction to programming, but maybe that's not really the case?"

6.001 from my experience does not in any way imply a student's focus on computer programming or software development. I've heard horror stories about people in completely unrelated majors ending up in that class and having their brains thoroughly melted. In my personal opinion, Python will be considerably more humane in that department.

Wish there was a way to read this online but The Little Schemer http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/BTLS/ made the first couple chapters of SICP a little easier for self study.

Eh, it's a troll. I sensed sarcasm but honestly, it's rendered as a troll. The title itself is present tense. There is no hint other than extra-article content that the author means anything other than what he's saying.

Didn't expect to see this type of thing on HN.

Sounds like a construction worker enrolling in an architecture class. It would be baffling. The author doesn't seem to acknowledge the value of processes abstracted from laying bricks. My guess is that he hasn't faced many ad-hoc buildings.

I for one welcome our new skwittle overlords. Skittles: the official candy of the twitterati?

I assume he was down voted for painting Web 2.0 as an aesthetic-driven convenience based entirely on an over-indulged consumer nirvana where we can waste 10 hours rounding our corners while the foundation of our entire civilization might cease to be.

In the same vein, verything we currently rely on could equally be called out. This could be the end of Automobile 10.0, Computer 4.0, Internet 3.0, Electricity 18.0 and Civilized Culture 1.0 (I kid..).

Design has a high purpose for some and the study of usability, ergonomics and tools to automate your way to market are nothing even remotely new. Web X.0 will work because it serves people better in whatever paradigm they may live, be it civilized or relatively barbaric. Obviously, limited by the eradication of the internet entirely. Humane interfaces on a non-existent platform will never get any eyeballs :)

I'm more curious which Web 3.0 startup's success is going to end the Web 2.0 era. Unfortunately, Web 3.0 might involve semaphore and smoke signals.

Given those two interpretations, it sounds irrational to be loyal to a company. Coupled with a bias towards an employee's best interest, I think saying "can't" is reasonable.

I might personally expand on what is meant by "company" and perhaps more importantly, an employee's position in it. It certainly makes less sense to be fiercely loyal the more expendable you are. A larger company can make more people look expendable (imo).

"(We're trying to change that with INSERT_SELF_PROMOTION_HERE--sneak preview of new features here!)"

This is not hacker news. This is hacker targeted marketing.

I have worked with Python and Ruby for nearly 10 years while being paid to code in Perl for a bit longer and honestly still to this day I wrestle with which language to build a new project. They are all wonderful and terrible.

The only insight I can offer you is that you can do everything you want to do in any of them. The points of consideration for which you learn then boils down to community, longevity (~market value of the skill/time) and personal interest in the specific tack each language takes. If you enjoy programming languages, there are different "interests" in Python, Perl and Ruby. Comparing the ways that Python and Ruby address Meta-programming, I think, will illuminate which for you is more interesting (which fits your brain better).

My other advice: Learn it all.

Programming Related podcasts that I keep up with:

Software Engineering Radio: http://www.se-radio.net/

Rails Envy: http://www.railsenvy.com/podcast

This Week in Django: http://thisweekindjango.com/

FLOSS Weekly: http://twit.tv/FLOSS

They always crucify the heretics. It's an group instinct that thwarts leadership and completely counter to the theoretical intention of HN. This should be a tribe of heretics.

You are right. I would, though, argue that design, architecture, music or art are not ends in themselves. They are method and some method are more evolutionarily significant to culture measured over time. At least that's what it looks like.

I may have misstepped using the word pulp as it surely would be conflated with the genre. I was using it in a more general purpose way. I will (try) to refrain from that in the future.

Let me find another example which can't be confused with Shakespeare. The Beatles wrote music to be enjoyed by the masses, popular music if you will in much the same way Vanilla Ice did. I do assign one more value over the other simply for longevity of the it's presence in and impact on western culture. I will let you guess which one. There's a good reason I can assume which you will guess.

I hardly fault pulp (I tried) for aiming at culture. I am simply rating its aim and potency. What is PHP influencing? How are PHP developers going to advance programming? In 50 years will we be using it? Will there be 30 newer programming langauages that picked up the choice bits from PHP?

It probably doesn't matter and definitely not for programmers today but in conversations evaluating the success or failure of languages these topics will be prime.

This comment won't be very popular and let me explain why in case you are interested in retaining credibility for potentially well thought out things you say in the future.

First, admitting that you didn't read the article in a comment on that article is showing your hand before the call and you know for a fact it's a losing hand. In the future, just fold and keep your chips.

Second, it's important to retain your clout in a community like this and actually reading the site regularly is key. If you had been reading this week you would have seen the 2 posts riding the top two related to PHP "winning". In both cases you would have gotten grumpy and written precisely this comment on those articles. If you had, you might have actually had a lot of upvotes. This articles is a response to those posts saying something resembling your point with some meditation on the topic.

Third, and this is the key point, try harder before commenting to ascertain whether or not you agree with the article before admitting to having not read it and then personally attacking someone you don't know. If you absolutely have to attack someone, it is universally bad form to attack someone whom you agree with.

Or perhaps Insufficiently Veiled Sarcasm News.

I see your point. I don't know the answer but I am wary of group-thinking ourselves into cranky single mindedness.

Indeed, there is design and then there is Design. There is architecture and there is Architecture. There is programming and there is Programming.

Anyone can write but not everyone can (or rightly wants to) Write.

This is nothing new. Pulp outsells literature and I'm sure people cry rivers over it. Does that mean pulp "wins"? By one measure, obviously. But they still won't teach it in school and noone will remember it when it's gone.