Bullshit. Not to mean or anything. But bullshit. Most of the arrows are labelled with the author's post-hac, childish generalizations of language differences. JavaScript came from Java because of the scary syntax? No, it came from Scheme because of the scary syntax, Java's syntax was considered particularly comforting. There's no relation between Lisp and MacLisp. Lisp came from "Turing Machines"? Ruby came from Perl and Lisp (but not Scheme) and not from Smalltalk? In fact, seems like Smalltalk had no influence at all. It's a cool idea, but it forces one to trivialize language differences to a scary extent.
Perhaps part of his point if it's "just for fun", which in the broadest interpretation could be taken as "without any basis whatsoever" then it doesn't belong in front of a crowd of people who expect logical explanations for things.
Let's be honest—some of the descendants are a bit off (Java->Javascript, anyone?), and some languages have multiple inspirations not listed.
It's an interesting idea, and perhaps the starting point of actual research, but isn't yet trustworthy or sensible enough to be taken as gospel.
> some of the descendants are a bit off (Java->Javascript, anyone?)
The page explicitly notes that this is not an inheritance / 'paternity' graph, but rather a description of the (perceived) problems with one language that another language fixes (or tries to).
I don't think there's even any implication that any one language was created in response to any other, just that it shares certain aspects, and removes certain warts.
Yeah, actually I have noticed and was well aware of it when making my comment. The topic of this particular comment thread, however, was specifically about the first graph since the mentioned link's validity was being "defended" by saying the graph was not an "inheritance / 'paternity' graph".
In fact, I could have also mentioned myself that the link was taken off the second graph to further my case that it was just plain wrong. The only reason I did not was because I thought it was something so obvious it would not be necessary to state it.
Comments
Bullshit. Not to mean or anything. But bullshit. Most of the arrows are labelled with the author's post-hac, childish generalizations of language differences. JavaScript came from Java because of the scary syntax? No, it came from Scheme because of the scary syntax, Java's syntax was considered particularly comforting. There's no relation between Lisp and MacLisp. Lisp came from "Turing Machines"? Ruby came from Perl and Lisp (but not Scheme) and not from Smalltalk? In fact, seems like Smalltalk had no influence at all. It's a cool idea, but it forces one to trivialize language differences to a scary extent.
So, do the words "just for fun" not actually mean anything to you?
Just curious - you seem really angry about this.
Perhaps part of his point if it's "just for fun", which in the broadest interpretation could be taken as "without any basis whatsoever" then it doesn't belong in front of a crowd of people who expect logical explanations for things.
Let's be honest—some of the descendants are a bit off (Java->Javascript, anyone?), and some languages have multiple inspirations not listed.
It's an interesting idea, and perhaps the starting point of actual research, but isn't yet trustworthy or sensible enough to be taken as gospel.
> some of the descendants are a bit off (Java->Javascript, anyone?)
The page explicitly notes that this is not an inheritance / 'paternity' graph, but rather a description of the (perceived) problems with one language that another language fixes (or tries to).
I don't think there's even any implication that any one language was created in response to any other, just that it shares certain aspects, and removes certain warts.
So you agree with the diagram is stating: that JavaScript fixes Java's syntax by using the same C-like syntax?
No, the given reason for Java -> JavaScript is completely wrong. I'd understand if the reason was "Java browser applets suck", but syntax?
Have you not noticed that the link you're complaining about is in PG's original essay, and the newer version has no link between Java and JavaScript?
Yeah, actually I have noticed and was well aware of it when making my comment. The topic of this particular comment thread, however, was specifically about the first graph since the mentioned link's validity was being "defended" by saying the graph was not an "inheritance / 'paternity' graph".
In fact, I could have also mentioned myself that the link was taken off the second graph to further my case that it was just plain wrong. The only reason I did not was because I thought it was something so obvious it would not be necessary to state it.
I think your complaints are mostly fixed in the second version.