putting this behind a CW because I have Feelings™ about this language holy shit

this may genuinely be the single most dogshit programming language I have ever tried. the only reason I don’t consider it an esolang is because it was created with a straight face

imagine if, back in the 1970’s when nobody had any idea what constituted a good programming language, 20 different Lisp languages all made terrible design decisions separately - and then those 20 Lisp languages were frankensteined together into a wildly inconsistent dumpster fire of a language. that’s Common Lisp. without exaggerating, I have genuinely had an easier time writing FORTH code than Common Lisp code

this language has four different ways to check for equality (not even counting the type-specific ones) and none of them behave sanely. the Common Lisp equivalent of switch/case only works reliably on one data type. there is no sane way to create a variable, set a variable, do anything with a variable. in fact as far as I can tell Common Lisp has no sane way to do anything whatsoever

Common Lisp, despite being a functional language, treats functions in a fucking insane way where they have their own separate namespace and have to be looked up with a special ugly syntax for no goddamn reason at all

this language doesn’t even feel like a language. it feels like a collection of random half-broken functions and macros left lying around by a bunch of prehistoric programmers that were just barely able to duct-tape their code together, and they’re all named esoteric shit like mapcar and caddr

there is no centralized resource for reading about Common Lisp and discovering which of the quintillion functions is going to work for your specific use case - instead there are several random websites that are either half-broken or prehistoric and none of them explain shit unless you’re already an expert on Common Lisp jargon that’s probably older than I am

I just… do not understand how anyone can like this language at all. I don’t even understand how someone can persist through the horrendous process of learning this language and come out the other side wanting to continue using it

omg first impressions of fish are that it is drastically nicer to use and configure and it’s way user-friendlier too. I made a mistake in my fish config and it not only told me the exact mistake that I made but it showed me the exact line and suggested an alternative that worked

unless fish starts doing stuff that frustrates me I might use it from now on

@tudbut omg I’ve actually never heard of nu before - what is that?

also it really surprises me to hear that Python is archaic to you! is it missing features that you would want it to have, or is it more about the overall approach that it takes as a scripting language?

also what’s a conf.d? I’ve heard that fish is able to suggest command-line flags - is that how it does that? like each command has its own conf.d script that returns a list of flags?

after looking into this a little bit I think I’m going to try fish which seems like it’s meant to be more user-friendly and less archiac than bash

look at this. fucking look at it

Hover to show content

@Stellar omg is that a thing? I’ve been kinda scared to try other shells because I don’t want to learn anything too complicated. but I might look into that if it’s not going to take too long to learn

I hate how much Linux relies on bash scripts, which might be the least portable and least readable scripting language they could’ve chosen

I literally can’t even sync my .bashrc files between Linux systems because the prewritten gobbledegook is different for each system and they aren’t compatible with each other

I like to read the Wikipedia article of a food that I’m eating, as I’m eating it

chat the rising trend in American bagel size is unsustainable. something must be done before it’s too late

Hover to show content

oh, you’ve been doing your own research? I’d love to have a look at the P-values. you’ve made sure that your hypothesis is falsifiable right? and I’m sure you have a very solid and nuanced understanding of the data that would be expected if the null hypothesis is true, right?

and clearly you must be highly knowledgeable and qualified in the field, to be overturning decades of scientific studies - presumably through in-depth meta-analyses of the relevant research

oh - you’re not? your criticism must be much more fundamental, then. you must know a lot about epistemology, the scientific method, and what constitutes “justified belief”… right?

shoutout to the random WoW player who told me “shadow dance is the entire point of subtlety rogue. you should play as assassination rogue instead if you don’t want to use it”

I hope you’re enjoying your life as a fun-hating optimization-poisoned tryhard

you are what you eat, which means that humans are made out of delicious delicious food