>you can do anything with any turing complete language
>every language gets shat on
>john carmack is smart and he uses and loves C++
>linus torvalds is smart and he hates C++ and says it is indicative of a sub-monkey IQ
>lisp / scheme / haskell are praised by high IQers as if these languages are like Latin compared to the incoherent grunting of other languages. Using Java means you have a low IQ
>nothing gets made in the real world with these functional languages
>every CEO of a new and successful software company, when interviewed, says the original product was programmed in two weeks / one month by two to three people
>google / apple / microsoft have armies of geniuses (supposedly) but can't copy these ideas in ten seconds
>bill gates is a genius. Steve ballmer was just the fucking business guy and he did well on the putnam maths test and was a genius
>everything microsoft makes is pure shit
Please explain!
>>53626466
>/g/ is one person
ok
john carmack hates C++ though, he uses racket
>every language gets shat on
you could also draw the mono lisa in MS Paint on Windows XP, doesn't mean it's suit for it
>C++
C++ is permissive of poor program architecture if fools use it. Carmack is no fool.
>scheme
There was a good article on this. Lisp based languages are so powerful that there is no standardization because there is an alternative to everything, as everything is so easy to make if you know what you're doing.
>original product was made in two weeks
copyright laws
>microsoft
money hungry
>>53626509
*mona
*intellectual property laws
>>53626466
>>you can do anything with any turing complete language
>>every language gets shat on
That's because all languages have issues
>>john carmack is smart and he uses and loves C++
>>linus torvalds is smart and he hates C++ and says it is indicative of a sub-monkey IQ
They have that opinion regarding the same language but for different purposes so it's not a contradiction
>>every CEO of a new and successful software company, when interviewed, says the original product was programmed in two weeks / one month by two to three people
>>google / apple / microsoft have armies of geniuses (supposedly) but can't copy these ideas in ten seconds
Because these CEOs are lying
>>bill gates is a genius. Steve ballmer was just the fucking business guy and he did well on the putnam maths test and was a genius
>>everything microsoft makes is pure shit
Bill gates hasn't coded anything for microsoft in many many years and being a genius doesnt translate to being a good programmer
I fail to see any contradictions
>>53626509
~ $ mono lisa
Cannot open assembly 'lisa': No such file or directory.
John Carmack isn't a C++/OOP maniac
http://number-none.com/blow/john_carmack_on_inlined_code.html
>>53626466
Language X is better than language Y is a subjective opinion. People will generally refer to the language they themselves use as being best.
This irrational behavior is inherent to everyone and shouldn't surprise you in the slightest.
>>53626466
>Please explain
It seems you're slowly coming to the realization that intelligence doesn't mean shit. Some clinically autistic people might use complicated programming languages, but that doesn't make them apt to solve any real life problems whatsoever. Maybe you'll stop spouting the "high IQers" meme as if it conferred any kind of authority.
>>53626466
Humans *sniff* in general are like *touches nose* that. *touches shirt*
>>53626466
>every CEO of a new and successful software company, when interviewed, says the original product was programmed in two weeks / one month by two to three people
>google / apple / microsoft have armies of geniuses (supposedly) but can't copy these ideas in ten seconds
They can! I work for one of the companies in question, and we have internal "demo days" in which teams of 2-4 people implement amazing features in a single week.
The product works mostly as advertised, but both the large company and the startup will incur massive amounts of technical debt -- increased maintenance headache, scalability issues, expansion problems and support nightmares.
For the startup, this doesn't matter: if the product fails, it will die and so will the investment and technical debt, while if it succeeds they'll have VC funding to pay off the debt by rewriting/refactoring the code properly.
>>53626466
>>you can do anything with any turing complete language
>>every language gets shat on
Elitism, hipsters, afraid to lose their jobs to Indians etc.
>>john carmack is smart and he uses and loves C++
>>linus torvalds is smart and he hates C++ and says it is indicative of a sub-monkey IQ
Cunts
>>lisp / scheme / haskell are praised by high IQers as if these languages are like Latin compared to the incoherent grunting of other languages. Using Java means you have a low IQ
>>nothing gets made in the real world with these functional languages
Java is easy and doing things with it is faster in the real world.
>>every CEO of a new and successful software company, when interviewed, says the original product was programmed in two weeks / one month by two to three people
>>google / apple / microsoft have armies of geniuses (supposedly) but can't copy these ideas in ten seconds
Apple rips everyone off all the time.
>>bill gates is a genius. Steve ballmer was just the fucking business guy and he did well on the putnam maths test and was a genius
>>everything microsoft makes is pure shit
Microsoft has been making awesome stuff since Satya Nadella took over. Peter Skillman is absolutely killing it as head of design for Windows 10 UX. He's the same guy behind the Nokia N9 UI.
>>53626466
Kek it's like you take the shitposting here seriously. This board should be /shp/ - Shitpost.
>you can do anything with any turing complete language
>every language gets shat on
Just because you can do anything doesn't mean you can do it easily or well. Every language has its own pros and cons.
>john carmack is smart and he uses and loves C++
>linus torvalds is smart and he hates C++ and says it is indicative of a sub-monkey IQ
Humans often disgree with each other.
>lisp / scheme / haskell are praised by high IQers as if these languages are like Latin compared to the incoherent grunting of other languages. Using Java means you have a low IQ
>nothing gets made in the real world with these functional languages
Real-world usage of languages isn't due to their elegance. You'll also notice that Latin isn't spoken as a "real world" language.
>every CEO of a new and successful software company, when interviewed, says the original product was programmed in two weeks / one month by two to three people
>google / apple / microsoft have armies of geniuses (supposedly) but can't copy these ideas in ten seconds
"New and successful software companies" generally have very simple ideas, which they marketed well. Big companies, Google especially, are coming out with new stuff all the time that's orders of magnitude more sophisticated than startups.
>bill gates is a genius. Steve ballmer was just the fucking business guy and he did well on the putnam maths test and was a genius
>everything microsoft makes is pure shit
They care more about making money than pure software.
>>53626466
>>lisp / scheme / haskell are praised by high IQers
>>nothing gets made in the real world with these functional languages
To explain your contradiction, you need to take a closer look at these people. Do they really have higher IQs or do they just say they do?
When I took a closer look, I found that many if not most of these people who say that these languages are superior are in a CS class that uses them. They learned that FP is "the future" so they think talking about it makes them seem enlightened or superior. It's just like that meme about euphoric atheists wearing fedoras. Most of the thousands of students who learn Lisp or Haskell don't use them for anything but their class assignments. They have professors and blogs saying these languages are superior, but they still don't use them. I would bet that's because more people dislike Lisps and functional languages than like them.
Another source of this myth is clickbait blogs. They don't need proof that "high IQers" prefer functional programming, or that functional programming is more productive or more mathematical. Being wrong just leads to more comments and clicks. Insulting readers creates a bigger controversy.
Another thing to keep in mind is that not every CS professor or researcher prefers functional languages. Some of the people who created the concepts found in functional languages prefer procedural programming or OOP.
I don't think functional programming is superior for research either, especially if you're looking at the research that is out there. There aren't any languages that implement the most advanced knowledge about imperative programming.
Modern computing is a lot of bullshit, that's the real reason. You're just looking at the symptoms. There was once a time when one average man could understand everything about the machine he owned, even at the electronic level. Now it has become too complicated, and all this bullshit makes for confusion.
Anyway, nothing was gained. It was a waste of time.
