On 21/12/2010 20:46, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:50:21 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail> wrote:
In a less extreme view, it is not about controlling stupidity, but
controlling creativity (a view popular amongst "artist"/"painter"
programmers). So here the programmers are not dumb, but still they
need to be kept in line with rules, constraints, specifications,
strict APIs, etc.. You can't do anything too strange or out of the
ordinary, and the language is a reflection of that, especially with
regards to restrictions on dynamic typing (and other dynamic stuff
like runtime class modification).
Those aren't bugs, they are the artistic qualities of my program! It's a
statement on the political bias against bugs, I mean most people kill
bugs without a second thought!
;)
-Steve
I'm not sure if my meaning was fully understood thete, but I wasn't
implying it was a programmer tried to masquerade problems in code by
saying it is "artistic" or something.
Rather it was a not-so-thinly veiled reference (and critique) of Paul
Graham's "painter" hacker/programmer archetype.
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
