Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8073

Re: Style Police (a rant)

From	Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Style Police (a rant)
Date	2011-09-16 03:26 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<31be6d6b-3026-4767-a188-5f233a44cbf2@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <j4jv3s$pom$1@speranza.aioe.org> <681a23e5-2c6d-47e1-9625-4d63062210df@m5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <j4no9g$dcq$1@speranza.aioe.org> <d6ac5247-e5fe-488d-9f35-f22b67a84b74@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <j4t2ik$5vp$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sep 15, 10:37 am, Cthun <cthun_...@qmail.net.au> wrote:
> On 13/09/2011 12:55 PM, Retahiv Oopsiscame wrote:
>
> > If you need to ask, then you simply do not understand.
> > If you need to ask, then you simply do not understand.
>
> Perhaps not. Some people dislike all the parentheses, but I confess I
> don't really know why.

How odd.

> http://www.clojure.org/
> http://try-clojure.org/

Eww! No thanks.

> >>> And of course the big thing the Lispers always keep hyping are the
> >>> macros.
>
> >> With good reason.
>
> > Poppycock.
>
> [calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

> Java finally is adding something called "try-with-resources". If
> Java had had macros we wouldn't have needed to wait. He could have
> written a try-with-resources macro built around regular try. Or even
> if he didn't have the chops for macro writing himself, as soon as
> there was much demand for try-with-resources someone would have made
> it available as a library in short order. But instead, the Java
> community had to wait until Sun/Oracle got their act together and
> added it.

And it works, instead of being buggy as hell and prone to name capture
issues, and Java codebases aren't chock full of idiosyncratic macro
invocations but are instead pretty standardized, so any skilled Java
professional can easily read any of that code and maintain it.

> Macros mean not having to wait for the implementation vendors for new
> language features. It means maybe getting esoteric ones the vendors
> don't see enough demand for to write themselves. It also means being
> able to easily write mini-compilers to convert a problem-domain
> language, such as an expressive math notation, into the underlying
> language. So you can do something like (math x^2 + 32) and get back a
> Polynomial object or whatever that can be called like a function with
> various values of x and also subjected to analytic methods. And yes,
> that's infix notation inside the hypothetical math macro.

Sounds like Lisp easily turns into a Tower of Babel where no-one can
understand anyone else's code.

> >>> Anyone who's had to maintain a large C codebase inherited from
> >>> someone else learns to dread macros.
>
> >> Learns to dread C macros, perhaps.
>
> > Macros are macros are macros.
>
> Not all macros are created equal.

Oh?

> C's are much less clean because they do nothing to help avoid symbol
> capture and they operate on text rather than the abstract syntax tree.

Something familiar in how you write. You remind me of someone I had a
very long argument with here, long ago. Appropriately, his name was
"Bent".

> > If I call a variable in a macro "x" and it contains a code fragment
> > supplied at the invocation site, there could be an "x" at the
> > invocation site as well, in scope around the invocation, that that
> > code fragment tries to reference. Replace "x" with any other name and
> > the same thing remains true. I suppose you could add some klunky
> > system that allows module-namespacing locals, and then use that in
> > macros to make collisions less likely, but that's one hell of a
> > kludge.
>
> Sort of, minus the klunky kludge part. Gensyms and qualified symbols can
> be used for this type of thing.

"Klunky kludge" is obviously in the eye of the beholder, if you think
those don't qualify.

> > If all language features were *equal* in their proneness to be
> > misused, why would we find macros to be a particularly frequent
> > culprit in C codebases, and macros and operator overloading in C++
> > codebases, as compared to, say, switch statements or for loops or
> > ordinary function calls?
>
> Because C/C++ preprocessor macros suck? See above.

See above indeed.

> > Most operator precedence rules you'll need will have been ingrained in
> > grade school math class, and you can always *elect* to parenthesize
> > when you want to be sure of a particular order of execution and don't
> > remember the precedence rule (or it goes the wrong way for your needs
> > in that case).
>
> Why leave any doubt?

There *is* no doubt, in most cases, for anyone who's graduated from
kindergarten.

> Besides, fully-parenthesized helps make the source code be close to a
> directly readable version of the abstract syntax tree.

"Readable" is obviously also in the eye of the beholder. :P

> And that makes it easier for the macro processor to work, and for
> the coder to reason about their macros.

And now we're back to this. To satisfy your macro yen, you make the
whole rest of the language suck.

> > And what is wrong with "syntaxy" language, exactly?
>
> It doesn't play nice with macros.

Like I care.

> > Without syntax, you don't even have a language, just a formless soup.
>
> [calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

> >>> And don't get me started on Common Lisp's boondoggle known as the
> >>> LOOP macro ...
>
> >> The Common Lisp LOOP macro does, in fact, suck. It's ... unLispy.
>
> > Merely being unLispy would be a good thing.
>
> [calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

> > The problem is that it's COBOLy, BASICy, and borderline INTERCALy.
>
> This much is true.

A single point we agree on! Wow. :P

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-10 06:45 +0200
  Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-10 11:40 +0000
    Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 14:06 -0700
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 14:07 +0000
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:55 -0400
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:34 +0000
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:58 -0400
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-09-11 10:12 -0700
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-14 12:22 +0000
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2011-09-14 15:04 +0000
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Paul Cager <paul.cager@googlemail.com> - 2011-09-14 09:36 -0700
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 09:47 -0700
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:32 +0000
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-17 00:57 +0200
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-17 19:56 +0000
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 21:20 +0200
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 17:11 -0400
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-12 01:22 +0200
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 21:13 -0400
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 16:54 -0700
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 23:42 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:54 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 07:18 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:07 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 08:15 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 12:00 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:10 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:55 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 10:37 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_9112011@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 22:58 -0400
                Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 00:23 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 03:26 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) un-Bent <dob@dib.dib.null> - 2011-09-16 13:02 +0000
                Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 22:40 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-17 19:36 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 08:58 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 11:56 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 17:05 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 19:13 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 20:45 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-21 18:37 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:13 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-26 19:34 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 06:49 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 09:21 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 14:17 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-01 20:53 +0200
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 21:12 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:17 -0700
              Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:56 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:12 -0400
              Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:59 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:13 -0400
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:17 +0000
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 21:12 -0400
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-12 07:36 -0300
          Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:58 -0400
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:12 -0400
    Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 15:33 +0200
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 09:42 -0700
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-11 20:35 +0200
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 16:55 -0700
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 20:36 -0700
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-12 10:05 +0200
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 15:35 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-13 10:35 +0200
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:48 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 12:18 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 17:30 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:59 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Joe Attardi <jattardi@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 10:54 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-24 01:54 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-09-24 02:58 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-24 11:35 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Joe Attardi <jattardi@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 13:50 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-26 21:14 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 17:50 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 17:47 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:17 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-27 00:50 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) tisue@cs.nwu.edu (Seth Tisue) - 2011-09-27 08:55 -0600
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:14 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:11 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:31 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 22:24 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-27 09:30 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) tisue@cs.nwu.edu (Seth Tisue) - 2011-09-27 08:57 -0600
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:38 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:36 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-09-30 15:58 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:32 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-30 21:26 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:34 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-10-01 15:51 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:18 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 16:26 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-10-01 21:25 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:23 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-05 10:01 -0400
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:58 -0700
            Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:52 -0400
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:14 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 06:42 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 07:20 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 08:46 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-12 21:03 -0400
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-09-12 20:18 +0100
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 21:20 +0200
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 13:52 -0700
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-12 00:17 +0000
  Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-10 21:32 -0400
    Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 13:27 +0200
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 11:05 -0400
    Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 13:23 +0000
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-11 10:04 -0400
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-11 12:45 -0300
          Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 16:53 -0400
            Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-14 12:30 +0000
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-14 20:47 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 18:06 -0700
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-15 10:06 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:28 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-20 07:36 -0400
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-20 13:04 +0000
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-20 20:34 -0300
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-14 22:33 -0300
                Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-15 13:46 +0000
              Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-14 21:40 -0400
      Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:59 -0400
        Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 21:25 +0000

csiph-web