He left out assembly languages which are really unrelated tribal religions characterized by primitive belief systems and rites of passage such as killing a lion, hanging by your thumbs, full body tattoos, or living alone in a cave for a month. I know. I passed my trial. I am a real man.
I feel the omission of smalltalk is just further evidence of it's true strength considering it inspired so many of the attributes of the other religions yet still persists unknown to the masses as the true religion with no religion behind all religion.
As soon as I saw the title, I knew Lisp would be Zen. I don't think that takes any thought -- regardless of their actual qualities, they have the same mystique.
I had a slightly different take on it: Scheme as Zen, and CL as Tibetan Buddhism, which has added deities and other more complicated theology back into Buddhism, sort of like the complexity of CL.
Some people tend to see it as a meme. It's not THAT far from a religion. Except, i didn't see any C++ programmer kill in the name of Bjarne Stroustrup...Yet.
Yep, ASM is the one true path that directly interfaces you with the underlying messy reality, but is only truly understood by a few arcane practitioners.
There's a group that practises a stronger version of Agnosticism. They say "We don't know, and it does not matter. (But it matters that it does not matter.)"
Javascript would be some kind of new-agey pop religion.
It looks at first like Christianity or Judaism, but it somehow brings in funky zen concepts like lambdas and prototype chains. No one really took it seriously, then one day, it was just everywhere. No two implementations are quite the same, and most people do it horribly.
does anyone really do javascript fulltime...? It sounds to me like doing CSS fulltime. Or writing XML configuration files for a living. Or something...
You'd think from the name that it's like Java, which is analogous to Judaism, but it really has nothing to do with Java. Maybe Madonna-style pop Kabala?
Hm, JavaScript is in fact a nice little Scheme with a cute little object system originating from Self with an ugly, ugly, ugly C-like/Javaish syntax and some dark, horrible secrets (like an asymmetric, atransitive `=='). Moreover, a lot of people use it, but not so many understand it...
Commandment 8 reminds me of the Brace Wars in C and the Indent 4 vs Indent 8 camps. Those who dislike Python's significant white space haven't seen real bloodshed.
Well, when I hear that something is a mix of a bunch of other things, I tend to picture the best about those things.
So if Ruby had:
* The clarity of Python
* As well as the batteries-includedness of Python
* With the flexibility of Perl
* As well as a library managed as well as CPAN
* With the tooling of Smalltalk
* But without the weird VM business
Then Ruby would be much more attractive to me. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Ruby, it's a fine language. I'm just saying that I hear those three things and I picture some sort of uber-language.
I find python's clarity lacking in comparison to ruby, at least in terms of making classes and iterators. Why are all those underscores really necessary?
No mention on your other points here because I either agree or don't have an experienced opinion on the matter.
Also does this make the jvm and or parrot like one of those weird new-age "all paths lead to the sun" sort of religions where "anything goes"/syntax so long as it involves some rough idea of a god/bytecode?
Dumb article. Judaism and C are about as opposite as you can get. Judaism's texts (the bible and the Talmud) are famously convoluted, contradictory, debated, etc. C is one of the cleanest languages.
"Judaism's texts (the bible and the Talmud) are famously convoluted, contradictory, debated, etc." that sounds like C's type system to me. Is that a char or a number? A pointer or a number? etc.
Yeah, Perl sucks. Instead of making me rewrite libraries, I have to actually work on the problem I want to solve, 'cause the libraries already work. I hate being productive!!1!
Using the words PERL and productive without a not qualifier in the same sentence opens up some sort of alternate universe time warp that is so dangerous it should be avoided at all costs.
Irony...like rain on your wedding day? Or maybe a traffic jam when you're already late?
I'm not sure you and I are working with the same definition of irony here. You don't like Perl, that we understand. But if you can honestly say you believe that Perl is not among the most productive, if not the most productive, glue languages for use in UNIX system administration tasks...then, well, I don't know what to say. One can't really have a rational discussion with someone who is that far off the map.
He was actually pretty nice to perl (even went as far as to say you will have to use it). What exactly would he have had to say for you not to be offended? Say it's as readable as Python? It isn't.
I've read many analyses of languages: their pros and cons, how much better I would think if I used them, how much more efficient I would be if I used them, how much cooler I would be if I used them.
But nothing was enough to convince to change. Until this. Fundamentalist Christianity. Well, goddamn.
his comments on C are completely unfounded. C's type coercion means you can ram all sorts of things into places they aren't supposed to go. typecasting says to me that there is nothing orthodox about C at all. if anything it is modern protestantism, a faith that lets you ram in whatever you want, but one wrong move and you go to hell (segfault)
I don't understand how anyone can be against us Pastafarians/Lolcoders!!! What is wrong with everyone? Just because I write legibly does not mean that I don't want my code to tell me that its in my pants waiting for input!
And obviously you all have not been blessed by his noodly appendages, but I shall not go and spread our sacred gospel, he shall come and touch you with his noodliness and you shall instantly convert.
As the original poster stated, please don't kill me if you are offended. Its aim was humor.
Bit of a tangent, but I never understand why people say this. Don't they know that humor is one of the most potent weapons? If someone is offended, will they be less offended that they are regarded as laughable?
(Tangent to the tangent - this reminds me a little of Jon Stewart hiding behind "But I'm only a comedian" every time someone wants to talk about the politics in his satire. I happen to like his satire a lot and have no particular objection to his politics, but this is just disingenuous.)