Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

[João Távora]

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:36 PM 조성빈 <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> > 2020. 5. 2. 오후 9:21, João Távora <address@hidden> 작성:
> >
> > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:11 PM 조성빈 <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 2020. 5. 2. 오후 9:03, João Távora <address@hidden> 작성:
> >>
> >> 
> >>> On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 12:40 PM Philippe Vaucher <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Interesting point. I think that could work, but wouldn't it be much 
> >>>>>> easier if the language itself was self-documenting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe, but that entails changing the language, by definition.  And you
> >>>>> will face resistance because languages are things people kinda grow
> >>>>> accustomed to.  Imagine if I told you the French language should now
> >>>>> also include all the words of Portuguese, because, you know, they're
> >>>>> just better. Even worse with macros. It's like I told you not only you
> >>>>> have to learn Portuguese words, but its grammar, too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well I propose to add new-style APIs. People can still use the old ones.
> >>
> >> But they would have to learn to read programs in the new stuff, no?
> >>
> >>
> >> Well learning the new stuff will be much easier & predictive if done well 
> >> (and that’s the point).
> >
> > OK, but don't you think it's a little presumptuous to assume that?
> > To assume that people will find (your) new language easier make
> > space for it in their minds?  Languages, especially the general
> > purpose parts of language, are very personal and cultural. Can't
> > you see how this has certain echoes of proclaiming a certain
> > new-age culture superior to an older one?
>
> I can’t find how adding consistency is a ‘new-age culture’.

I suppose you speak a natural language, right? Probably
an Asian language I know nothing of. But I suppose it was something
akin to symbols/words, though. Would you like it if someone proclaims
they have a much more "consistent" set and you must learn it?

Or are you perfectly happy with what you've learned from
whomever fed you as a baby, maybe even affectionate to it, however
"inconsistent" it may be?  Do you even question consistency?

You shouldn't try change language by decree, is my point. It's a
slow process.

And who decides "consistency"? Do we even need a string library?
I don't think that's "consistent". Aren't strings sequences? Shouldn't
we be using a sequences library instead? Why not follow exclusively
Common Lisp for "consistency"? Elisp has certainly been culturally
closer to it longer than it has to Clojure.

João