> they need to understand that there's another dimension to criticisms of Lisp that aren't just "I don't like parentheses" and that there is substantive feedback to be gleaned.
I'm also somewhat reminded of the decline of Perl and how some people who love and still frequently use Perl don't really seem to even acknowledge the complaints people have about it, which seems to prove the claim about the decline being cultural. According to that kind of attitude, the lack of popularity is inexplicable, and we might actually be lucky that they're not resorting to conspiracy theories to "explain" the mismatch between their preferences and observable reality.
The Haskell motto of "avoid success at all costs" seems a lot healthier, as in, they know they might need to choose between going mainstream and getting to keep a language that suits them personally.
Lots of the Lisp advocacy also comes off as either entirely too vague, like this blog post, or stuck in the age of the `worse-is-better` talk (1989, so predates WWW and nearly all the programming languages in widespread general use). I don't care about comparisons to C, because the only places C is seriously considered for new projects these days are in places where a GC is unacceptable (and purposes Rust isn't certified for or whatever).
I think another macro, `json!()` works better as an example for that: inside the `json!()` you write something very similar to actual JSON. So when you see a `!` you know that there might be something out-of-the-ordinary following: https://docs.rs/serde_json/latest/serde_json/macro.json.html
Incidentally it also means that formatters like `rustfmt` won't apply the usual rules. For the macros that don't really deviate from ordinary Rust syntax, that can be a bit annoying.
Though at the same time the bit where `use strict` was optional wound up being off-putting to a lot of us, at least in part because we'd always wind up with _something_ that wasn't designed for `use strict` and had, uh, interesting failure modes.
It's the same drive that we see from JS to TS these days, or adding type hints to Python, and even to some extent why people pick up Rust: because you get a refusal to act and an explanation rather than wonky results when you goof.
IME there's been a wider shift away from worse-is-better, and Perl was kind of one of the early casualties of that. Part of that is also how science has marched on: When Python and Perl were new, the most popular typed languages were kind of tedious but not what people would consider _good_ at types these days. Perl was the first language I learned, and if I was transported back to the 1990s, I'd probably still pick it, even if I don't use it in 2025.
(OK, maybe I'd go all in on OCaml. Any way the camel wins.)
re: `fd` I also find it a lot better to do something like `fd -e py -X ruff format` than `find -name '*.py' -exec ruff format {} +`.
Part of it is that `find` seems to come from before we standardized on `--foo --bar` having an equivalent in `-fb`, and the nagging about some flags being positional, but also just the general syntax of their `-exec`, which _requires_ the `{}` to be present, but it can only ever be in one position for the `+` variant.
My one nag about `fd` is that it has two optional positional arguments, so the way I use it I sometimes wind up with `fd -e $ext "" /path/to/search`. (`fd -e $ext --search-path /path/to/search` might be a clearer alternative I should habituate myself to.)
IME positional arguments are always less ergonomic than flags/options, _especially_ if there are more than one of them and they're not mandatory.
>> Especially in the era of AI assistants, the downside of writing out explicit types and repetition matters very little
> Yeah, let's design languages based on the capabilities of code assistance /s
I mean, that _is_ essentially the Go team's take these days, c.f. their previous blog post about error handling: https://go.dev/blog/error-syntax
> Writing repeated error checks can be tedious, but today’s IDEs provide powerful, even LLM-assisted code completion. Writing basic error checks is straightforward for these tools. The verbosity is most obvious when reading code, but tools might help here as well; for instance an IDE with a Go language setting could provide a toggle switch to hide error handling code.
Personally I expect that getting an LLM to write error handling and then have the IDE hide it sounds like a recipe for surprises, but I guess things work out differently if the goal is to have hordes of the cheapest possible juniors kitted out with tools that let them produce the most amount of code per dollar.
Ultimately he's fine with _some_ syntax highlighting, especially the kind that uses whitespace to highlight parts of the syntax, as evidenced by the existence of `go fmt`. He just hasn't taken into consideration that colour is just one typographical tool among many, including the use of whitespace, as well as italics, bold, size, typeface, etc. Switching inks has been somewhat tedious in printing, but these days most publications seem to support it just fine, and obsessive note-takers also use various pens and highlighters in different colours. For the rest of us it's mostly about the toil of switching pens that's holding us back I think, rather than some real preference for monochromatic notes. We generally have eyes that can discern colours and brains that can process that signal in parallel to other stuff, which along with our innate selective attention means we can filter out the background or have our attention drawn to stuff like red lights. Intentionally not using that built-in hardware feature is ultimately just making stuff harder on oneself with no particular benefit.
There's also some google groups quote from him about iterators which is also pretty funny given how modern Go uses them, but I don't have the link at hand. Several google groups quotes from the original language creators (not just Pike) tell an unfortunate story about how the language came to be the way it is.
I also use just as a command runner, but I gotta agree with the others here that it should be described accurately as a command runner, while make is a build system.
There are some uses of make, especially by people who have never used it to build C/C++ projects, which makes more sense to replace with just. It doesn't have the baggage that make does, and they're not using it to actually make files. They also quite likely don't know the conventions (e.g. what a lot of us expect "make install" to do), and I support them in not learning the conventions of make—as long as they use something else. :)
Other uses of make will need other modern replacements, e.g. Cmake or Bazel.
It is possible that Kids These Days can say "no thanks" when someone tries to teach them make, and that the future of make is more along the lines of something us greybeards complain about. Back in _my_ day, etc.
This seems similar to how macos has bash, but it has ancient bash. Allegedly the reason is that Apple is fine with GPL2 but not GPL3.
Though at that point I kinda wonder why they bother shipping bash at all, when their default shell is zsh, and it's entirely possible to have system shell scripts run by the BSD-licensed dash, rather than bash.
There's probably also something to be said about the choice of running ancient GNU make rather than BSD make, but I don't know enough about the differences to say it.
I'm also somewhat reminded of the decline of Perl and how some people who love and still frequently use Perl don't really seem to even acknowledge the complaints people have about it, which seems to prove the claim about the decline being cultural. According to that kind of attitude, the lack of popularity is inexplicable, and we might actually be lucky that they're not resorting to conspiracy theories to "explain" the mismatch between their preferences and observable reality.
The Haskell motto of "avoid success at all costs" seems a lot healthier, as in, they know they might need to choose between going mainstream and getting to keep a language that suits them personally.
Lots of the Lisp advocacy also comes off as either entirely too vague, like this blog post, or stuck in the age of the `worse-is-better` talk (1989, so predates WWW and nearly all the programming languages in widespread general use). I don't care about comparisons to C, because the only places C is seriously considered for new projects these days are in places where a GC is unacceptable (and purposes Rust isn't certified for or whatever).