<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paul Graham!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/</link>
	<description>Programming is hard</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: stephan</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-53729</link>
		<dc:creator>stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:30:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-53729</guid>
		<description>@Tabbot: Well I can't because those I used those languages over the course of 25 years, and truth told, I can't remember what I did program 25 years ago. But perhaps you can tell me what you did program 25 years ago.

If you're really interested, and this wasn't just an ad hominem attack, just check with some open source projects. For a discussion on good code see "Beautiful code", for bad code see "Refactoring" and "Working Effectively with Legacy Code."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tabbot: Well I can&#8217;t because those I used those languages over the course of 25 years, and truth told, I can&#8217;t remember what I did program 25 years ago. But perhaps you can tell me what you did program 25 years ago.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re really interested, and this wasn&#8217;t just an ad hominem attack, just check with some open source projects. For a discussion on good code see &#8220;Beautiful code&#8221;, for bad code see &#8220;Refactoring&#8221; and &#8220;Working Effectively with Legacy Code.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tabbot</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-53727</link>
		<dc:creator>Tabbot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-53727</guid>
		<description>&#62;&#62; "I’ve seen good code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java, C and a dozen other languages. And I’ve seen bad code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java C and a dozen other languages. And I’ve seen good and bad developers writing code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java, C and a dozen other languages."

really? wow! you are so ....
I challenge you to show at least 1 example of good and bad code in each of 'dozen' languages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt; &#8220;I’ve seen good code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java, C and a dozen other languages. And I’ve seen bad code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java C and a dozen other languages. And I’ve seen good and bad developers writing code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java, C and a dozen other languages.&#8221;</p>
<p>really? wow! you are so &#8230;.<br />
I challenge you to show at least 1 example of good and bad code in each of &#8216;dozen&#8217; languages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Adkins</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-52223</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Adkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:16:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-52223</guid>
		<description>Stephan, I think we're probably both interested in increasing our effectiveness as programmers, and I agree that good programmers with inferior tools will probably outperform bad programmers with superior tools, but I think I feel the importance of programming language choice is more important than you do. I guess we can agree to disagree on that point.

BTW - when I said, "Stephan, don’t let your personal bias color your interpretation - much better to let someone else run an objective experiment and tell you which tools are best for you ;)", I had a winking smiley to indicate sarcasm. My point was not that PG was objective, but that the article seemed to be saying, in effect, ignore your personal observations and run objective, scientific experiments, but what may work well for a random population of programmers may not be the best for you, or your team, or me in my opinion.

Also, I feel you changed the meaning of my statement quite a bit when you changed "random population of individuals" to "... individuals", and then referred to your team members as the individuals. I'm not implying you should ignore the team, but that the personal observations/experiences of you and/or the team are particularly relevant - more so than an objective experiment with a "random population of individuals".

In particular, I think the determination of the "best programming language" depends quite a bit on the capabilities of the programmers (and problems to be solved, etc.) i.e. the be best language for a large group of inexperienced programmers, is probably not the same as what would be best for a smaller team of very experienced programmers - that's part of the difficulty with obtaining objective, relevant results from an experiment.

On the other hand, I'd like to keep an open mind, so if you are aware of objective experiments regarding programming language effectiveness, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing about them. I haven't found many that I can put confidence in, but that's not to say they don't exist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephan, I think we&#8217;re probably both interested in increasing our effectiveness as programmers, and I agree that good programmers with inferior tools will probably outperform bad programmers with superior tools, but I think I feel the importance of programming language choice is more important than you do. I guess we can agree to disagree on that point.</p>
<p>BTW - when I said, &#8220;Stephan, don’t let your personal bias color your interpretation - much better to let someone else run an objective experiment and tell you which tools are best for you ;)&#8221;, I had a winking smiley to indicate sarcasm. My point was not that PG was objective, but that the article seemed to be saying, in effect, ignore your personal observations and run objective, scientific experiments, but what may work well for a random population of programmers may not be the best for you, or your team, or me in my opinion.</p>
<p>Also, I feel you changed the meaning of my statement quite a bit when you changed &#8220;random population of individuals&#8221; to &#8220;&#8230; individuals&#8221;, and then referred to your team members as the individuals. I&#8217;m not implying you should ignore the team, but that the personal observations/experiences of you and/or the team are particularly relevant - more so than an objective experiment with a &#8220;random population of individuals&#8221;.</p>
<p>In particular, I think the determination of the &#8220;best programming language&#8221; depends quite a bit on the capabilities of the programmers (and problems to be solved, etc.) i.e. the be best language for a large group of inexperienced programmers, is probably not the same as what would be best for a smaller team of very experienced programmers - that&#8217;s part of the difficulty with obtaining objective, relevant results from an experiment.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I&#8217;d like to keep an open mind, so if you are aware of objective experiments regarding programming language effectiveness, I&#8217;d be sincerely interested in hearing about them. I haven&#8217;t found many that I can put confidence in, but that&#8217;s not to say they don&#8217;t exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephan</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51831</link>
		<dc:creator>stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51831</guid>
		<description>"You can at least thank Paul for some blog traffic, eh ;)"

Well I don't to adsense anymore so I only care about interested readers ... not traffic :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You can at least thank Paul for some blog traffic, eh ;)&#8221;</p>
<p>Well I don&#8217;t to adsense anymore so I only care about interested readers &#8230; not traffic :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephan</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51791</link>
		<dc:creator>stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51791</guid>
		<description>Objective? PG? 

"[...] individuals, or yourself?"

Actually individuals. Because from my point of view, software development is a team effort. Maintanence over 5 to 10 years surely is. So yes, I'm interested those who develop together with me and how will maintain the code after me. 

But if your a lone-gun-coder, this might explain your views a little better.

"Regarding the writings of Paul about Lisp I was referring to that show evidence of the merits of Lisp, I’d check out: “ANSI Common Lisp” and “On Lisp”

Every Lisp discussion ends in pointless examples, see the last comments on

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28247382&#038;postID=4500692205904440622

Views and opinions, nothing more. 

After 25 years of programming, with Z80, 6502, 68k, Basic, E, C, Pascal, Oberon, Modula, C  , Perl, Python, Logo, Prolog, Lisp, Scheme, Ruby, Java and lots of other languages, I'd like to have facts. In the end only experiments and examples will convince me in the future of functional languages.

And examples are more about: How to write and model an accounting package in Lisp, not about writing a square root function in a very abstract way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Objective? PG? </p>
<p>&#8220;[...] individuals, or yourself?&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually individuals. Because from my point of view, software development is a team effort. Maintanence over 5 to 10 years surely is. So yes, I&#8217;m interested those who develop together with me and how will maintain the code after me. </p>
<p>But if your a lone-gun-coder, this might explain your views a little better.</p>
<p>&#8220;Regarding the writings of Paul about Lisp I was referring to that show evidence of the merits of Lisp, I’d check out: “ANSI Common Lisp” and “On Lisp”</p>
<p>Every Lisp discussion ends in pointless examples, see the last comments on</p>
<p><a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28247382&#038;postID=4500692205904440622" rel="nofollow">https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28247382&#038;postID=4500692205904440622</a></p>
<p>Views and opinions, nothing more. </p>
<p>After 25 years of programming, with Z80, 6502, 68k, Basic, E, C, Pascal, Oberon, Modula, C  , Perl, Python, Logo, Prolog, Lisp, Scheme, Ruby, Java and lots of other languages, I&#8217;d like to have facts. In the end only experiments and examples will convince me in the future of functional languages.</p>
<p>And examples are more about: How to write and model an accounting package in Lisp, not about writing a square root function in a very abstract way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Adkins</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51770</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Adkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51770</guid>
		<description>I just read the hacknot link you provided. What a load of BS! 

Are you interested in determining what tools would increase the productivity of a random population of individuals, or yourself? If you give credence to that article, then I can understand your views a little better.

"When a researcher allows their own biases to color their interpretation of experimental results." Stephan, don't let your personal bias color your interpretation - much better to let someone else run an objective experiment and tell you which tools are best for you ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read the hacknot link you provided. What a load of BS! </p>
<p>Are you interested in determining what tools would increase the productivity of a random population of individuals, or yourself? If you give credence to that article, then I can understand your views a little better.</p>
<p>&#8220;When a researcher allows their own biases to color their interpretation of experimental results.&#8221; Stephan, don&#8217;t let your personal bias color your interpretation - much better to let someone else run an objective experiment and tell you which tools are best for you ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Adkins</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51765</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Adkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51765</guid>
		<description>Stephan, if you can't see any evidence that "Lisp may be a good programming language for many situations", then, in my opinion, it's either because you're not looking, or don't want to see. The fact that you may not like it personally is irrelevant to the question of its effectiveness.

Regarding the writings of Paul about Lisp I was referring to that show evidence of the merits of Lisp, I'd check out:

"ANSI Common Lisp" and "On Lisp"

I believe the latter is out of print, but you can find online versions. I personally also like his Lisp related essays, but you may find them too fairy taleish :)

You can at least thank Paul for some blog traffic, eh ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephan, if you can&#8217;t see any evidence that &#8220;Lisp may be a good programming language for many situations&#8221;, then, in my opinion, it&#8217;s either because you&#8217;re not looking, or don&#8217;t want to see. The fact that you may not like it personally is irrelevant to the question of its effectiveness.</p>
<p>Regarding the writings of Paul about Lisp I was referring to that show evidence of the merits of Lisp, I&#8217;d check out:</p>
<p>&#8220;ANSI Common Lisp&#8221; and &#8220;On Lisp&#8221;</p>
<p>I believe the latter is out of print, but you can find online versions. I personally also like his Lisp related essays, but you may find them too fairy taleish :)</p>
<p>You can at least thank Paul for some blog traffic, eh ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephan</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51704</link>
		<dc:creator>stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51704</guid>
		<description>Brian, "but if you’ve read much of his writings about Lisp, I think you’d find much evidence for Lisp being a good choice for many situations besides a one-time business deal that went exceptionally well."

Are there any indications of this? I know, just because I didn't see a black swan doesn't mean there is none. But there might be really no aliens.

I can't see any evidence, perhaps you can point me to some, 

http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=49</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian, &#8220;but if you’ve read much of his writings about Lisp, I think you’d find much evidence for Lisp being a good choice for many situations besides a one-time business deal that went exceptionally well.&#8221;</p>
<p>Are there any indications of this? I know, just because I didn&#8217;t see a black swan doesn&#8217;t mean there is none. But there might be really no aliens.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t see any evidence, perhaps you can point me to some, </p>
<p><a href="http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=49" rel="nofollow">http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=49</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Adkins</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51669</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Adkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51669</guid>
		<description>Stephan, aren't you making the same mistake you're accusing Paul Graham of making? Do you think Paul's evaluation of Lisp is based solely on the fact that he made a lot of money selling a product that was written in Lisp? The fact that he made a ton of money in that venture may certainly depend on many factors outside of his control, but if you've read much of his writings about Lisp, I think you'd find much evidence for Lisp being a good choice for many situations besides a one-time business deal that went exceptionally well.

Regarding your statement about "good code usually depends on the production environment and the skills of the developer", Paul made a very relevant comment about the latter which you may find interesting. It's at the bottom of my blog post below:

http://lojic.com/blog/2008/01/17/2008-programming-language-plan/

Also, do you have evidence that Yahoo found the code unmaintainable? Surely you realize there are many possible reasons why a corporation would do what they did, and only some of them are technical.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephan, aren&#8217;t you making the same mistake you&#8217;re accusing Paul Graham of making? Do you think Paul&#8217;s evaluation of Lisp is based solely on the fact that he made a lot of money selling a product that was written in Lisp? The fact that he made a ton of money in that venture may certainly depend on many factors outside of his control, but if you&#8217;ve read much of his writings about Lisp, I think you&#8217;d find much evidence for Lisp being a good choice for many situations besides a one-time business deal that went exceptionally well.</p>
<p>Regarding your statement about &#8220;good code usually depends on the production environment and the skills of the developer&#8221;, Paul made a very relevant comment about the latter which you may find interesting. It&#8217;s at the bottom of my blog post below:</p>
<p><a href="http://lojic.com/blog/2008/01/17/2008-programming-language-plan/" rel="nofollow">http://lojic.com/blog/2008/01/17/2008-programming-language-plan/</a></p>
<p>Also, do you have evidence that Yahoo found the code unmaintainable? Surely you realize there are many possible reasons why a corporation would do what they did, and only some of them are technical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephan</title>
		<link>http://www.codemonkeyism.com/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51617</link>
		<dc:creator>stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/06/28/paul-graham/#comment-51617</guid>
		<description>@Lawrence: I guess you have a point. With Lisp it was possible for PG to edge out his competition so it may have bee the best he could do. But the the draws the wrong conclusions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Lawrence: I guess you have a point. With Lisp it was possible for PG to edge out his competition so it may have bee the best he could do. But the the draws the wrong conclusions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
