educated_foo wrote: arguments like "my language is best because I can't make yours do things my language's way" deserve a quick trip to /dev/null.
Yes and no. Any time I see a superlative like "any", "none", "everbody", etc., I tend to be suspicious. However, this doesn't mean the argument is completely invalid, just suspect. I think a point that Paul Graham would agree with is that a given tool is likely a superior choice for a problem if it solves that problem more succintly than the available alternatives. Let's consider a very simplistic example.
Imagine that I want to know what a given person might steal. I might assume that they will steal stuff given the following conditions:
- That person is a thief.
- The stuff is valuable.
- The stuff is owned by someone (how do you steal something if it's not owned by anyone?).
- And the person doesn't know the person who owns the stuff they might steal.
If I were programming in Prolog, I might have the following program:
steals(PERP, STUFF) :- thief(PERP), valuable(STUFF), owns(VICTIM,STUFF), not(knows(PERP,VICTIM)). thief(badguy). valuable(gold). valuable(rubies). owns(merlyn,gold). owns(ovid,rubies). knows(badguy,merlyn).
It's fairly easy to read, once you know Prolog. :- is read as "if" and a comma is read as "and".
I can then as what a given person might steal:
?- steals(badguy,X). X = gold Yes ?- steals(merlyn,X). No
So, we can see from this example that the badguy might steal gold and that merlyn will steal nothing (given the information available). Note that at no point did we state that the badguy would actually steal gold. The program was merely able to infer this from the available information. Now, try to program that in Perl, Java, C, etc. You can do it, but it's not going to be nearly as easy or efficient as programming in Prolog.
I think you would agree with that conclusion as you wrote "objects are ugly in Lisp, so you encapsulate your data with closures. Objects are easy in Java, so you bind data to functions with anonymous classes.". While I could be misreading you, I took that to mean that different languages have different ways of naturally arriving at solutions. This implies to me that if a given language's approaches are more suitable for a given problem, then that language is more suitable for said problem. Rebuttals welcome :)
The danger, of course, lies in believing that "foo" is an appropriate solution for every problem. If we're unwilling to take the time to learn what else is out there, we naturally limit ourselves in how we can conceive of solutions to problems. However, I doubt that Paul Graham believes that Lisp is better for everything. Of course, just as we tend to write for a Perl audience, he writes for a Lisp audience and this makes it easy to misread what is said.
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.