Post

I've been off-and-on smitten by this idea, which I associate mostly with lisp enthusiasts (affectionate), that if you just had the right affordances around abstractions and DSLs programming would be magic after writing Haskell professionally for a few years I'm depressed, systems are too wide

I mean not magic, but the right affordances can create magic. TBH I think the experience of writing Lisp or SmallTalk is the closest thing to vibecoding that isn't vibecoding?

Haskell isn't like this, Haskell has this rigorous, mathematical, "really consciously do a lot of design thinking up front" kind of culture, and Lisp, SmallTalk, and other "weird" languages like FORTH and APL, are the TOTAL OPPOSITE of that!

i don’t think that’s true, more that people are inclined to take that approach by virtue of what attracted them to the language. you can dynamically type whatever you want or stash evil things behind deferred evaluation if you don’t want to be rigorous.

Yes. What I'm saying is that those values define the affordances of the language and therefore what is easy, what is difficult, and what isn't permitted. The design of a language changes the things you are most likely to write!