(and scheme lisp) x Python and modern langs [was Re: gossip, Guy Steel, Lojban, Racket]

[namekuseijin]

On 29 set, 17:46, Xah Lee <xah... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:02 am, namekuseijin <namekusei... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee <xah... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> > > functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
> > > encourage mis-communication, mis-understanding.
>
> > I disagree:  it is a quite intuitive term to describe what the
> > expression does.
>
> what's your basis in saying that “list comprehension” is intuitive?

it generates a list from syntax comprehended in list-like syntax!

> any statics, survery, research, references you have to cite?

how about common sense?

> to put this in context, are you saying that lambda, is also intuitive?

No.

> “let” is intuitive?

yes, it's focking everyday term used in the same way:  let this be
this and that be that and thus...

> “for” is intuitive?

yes, it's focking everyday term used in the same way:  for this and
this and this do that...

> “when” is intuitive?

when this, then that?

common sense, Xah!

> For example, let us know, in your view, how good are terms: currying,
> lisp1 lisp2, tail recursion, closure, subroutine, command, object.

These terms have a technical meaning coming from historic events in
the areas they are used.  It's like that in all areas, you may also
bash medicine jargon if you want.

Though subroutine, command and object are pretty intuitive by common
sense alone.

> perhaps expound on the comparative merits and meaning on the terms
> module vs package vs add-on vs library. I would like to see your view
> on this with at least few paragraphs of analysis on each.

They are all the same shit.  These were developed by managers and
buzzwriters... ;)

> Also, “being intuitive” is not the only aspect to consider whether a
> term is good or bad. For example, emacs's uses the term “frame”. It's
> quite intuitive, because frame is a common english word, everyone
> understands. You know, door frame, window frame, picture frame, are
> all analogous to emacs's “frame” on a computer. However, by some turn
> of history, in computer software we call such as “window” now, and by
> happance the term “window” also has a technical meaning in emacs, what
> we call “split window” or “pane” today. So, in emacs, the term “frame”
> and “window” is confusing, because emacs's “frame” is what we call
> “window”, while emacs's “window” is what me might call a pane of a
> split window. So here, is a example, that even when a term is
> intuitive, it can still be bad.

emacs is all FUBAR in more than one way.  being intuitive is not
exactly what it is known for... ;)

well, I shouldn't be bashing it, my vim is not that funky among
commoners anymore anyway... :p

> I wrote about 14 essays on various jargons in past decade. You can
> find them on my site.

yeah, I've read them once in a while...