If Programming Languages Were Religions 844
bshell writes "With Christmas around the corner I know we are all thinking about religion, or at least maybe wondering why this one religion dominates the rest for these few weeks. A fellow named Rodrigo Braz Monteiro (amz) posted this list comparing each programming language to a religion. Guaranteed to make you chuckle and generate a good long thread here on slashdot. Great way to pass the time as work winds down this week and we relate to our own programming faiths during this very special time of year. Merry PHPmas." Fortunately Pastafarianism is referenced.
Re:Slashdotted? (Score:3, Informative)
C would be Judaism - it's old and restrictive, but most of the world is familiar with its laws and respects them. The catch is, you can't convert into it - you're either into it from the start, or you will think that it's insanity. Also, when things go wrong, many people are willing to blame the problems of the world on it.
Java would be Fundamentalist Christianity - it's theoretically based on C, but it voids so many of the old laws that it doesn't feel like the original at all. Instead, it adds its own set of rigid rules, which its followers believe to be far superior to the original. Not only are they certain that it's the best language in the world, but they're willing to burn those who disagree at the stake.
PHP would be Cafeteria Christianity - Fights with Java for the web market. It draws a few concepts from C and Java, but only those that it really likes. Maybe it's not as coherent as other languages, but at least it leaves you with much more freedom and ostensibly keeps the core idea of the whole thing. Also, the whole concept of "goto hell" was abandoned.
C++ would be Islam - It takes C and not only keeps all its laws, but adds a very complex new set of laws on top of it. It's so versatile that it can be used to be the foundation of anything, from great atrocities to beautiful works of art. Its followers are convinced that it is the ultimate universal language, and may be angered by those who disagree. Also, if you insult it or its founder, you'll probably be threatened with death by more radical followers.
C# would be Mormonism - At first glance, it's the same as Java, but at a closer look you realize that it's controlled by a single corporation (which many Java followers believe to be evil), and that many theological concepts are quite different. You suspect that it'd probably be nice, if only all the followers of Java wouldn't discriminate so much against you for following it.
Lisp would be Zen Buddhism - There is no syntax, there is no centralization of dogma, there are no deities to worship. The entire universe is there at your reach - if only you are enlightened enough to grasp it. Some say that it's not a language at all; others say that it's the only language that makes sense.
Haskell would be Taoism - It is so different from other languages that many people don't understand how can anyone use it to produce anything useful. Its followers believe that it's the true path to wisdom, but that wisdom is beyond the grasp of most mortals.
Erlang would be Hinduism - It's another strange language that doesn't look like it could be used for anything, but unlike most other modern languages, it's built around the concept of multiple simultaneous deities.
Perl would be Voodoo - An incomprehensible series of arcane incantations that involve the blood of goats and permanently corrupt your soul. Often used when your boss requires you to do an urgent task at 21:00 on friday night.
Lua would be Wicca - A pantheistic language that can easily be adapted for different cultures and locations. Its code is very liberal, and allows for the use of techniques that might be described as magical by those used to more traditional languages. It has a strong connection to the moon.
Ruby would be Neo-Paganism - A mixture of different languages and ideas that was beaten together into something that might be identified as a language. Its adherents are growing fast, and although most people look at them suspiciously, they are mostly well-meaning people with no intention of harming anyone.
Python would be Humanism: It's simple, unrestrictive, and all you need to follow it is common sense. Many of the followers claim to feel relieved from all the burden imposed by other languages, and that they have rediscovered the joy of programming. There are some who say that it is a form of pseudo-code.
COBOL would be Ancient Pagani
Re:python is unrestrictive? (Score:4, Informative)
In Java it is next to impossible to write a "Hello World" program without tripping over object oriented design. In python don't really need to create a ObjectFactory to create little widget objects if you don't feel like it etc.
This leaves the user unrestricted when it comes to program design (though python slightly does nudge you in the rightish direction with the way the language is developing).
Re:Brainfck ... ? (Score:2, Informative)
Converting into Judaism (Score:5, Informative)
The article's author says about Judaism:
This isn't true, however. You can convert into Judaism, we just purposefully make it difficult to do so. The custom is that you need to turn the person away 3 times. Only after they come back after the third turn-away can they begin the process to convert. This helps ensure that people don't take conversion to Judaism lightly. The conversion itself is mainly classes to get up to speed on the religious laws and then a dunk in a mikvah (a kind of ritual pool). Males have an extra obstacle - circumcision. And don't think that hospital-administered one will get you out of it. In the case of an already circumcised male convert, a drop of blood is still taken (as a sort of token religious circumcision). The end result is that converts are actually more likely to be religious than natural-born Jews and aren't likely to convert away from Judaism on a whim.
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
I beg to differ (Score:5, Informative)
I was right with you up till that.
Religion (and yeah, any other non-rational shared belief system, like football (aka "soccer")) is a key component of most episodes of large scale violence. It's hard to get people to do things that are liable to get them hurt or killed, or lead them to hurt or kill others. Their natural reaction will be to think "But wait, what if somebody gets hurt?"
This is where all having the same imaginary friend comes in. If you can get people worked up by some non-falsifiable hogwash you can whip up a mod that will believe and do anything. Getting people to do stupid things is much easier if you shut their brains down first.
The great thing about imaginary friends for this sort of thing is that they can't contradict you. If you use a living celebrity ("Come on, people, let's kill him for Oprah's sake!") there's always the risk your Chosen One will step up and say "WTF are you thinking?"
There's a reason it's so easy to associate specific religions with specific stupid bloodthirsty acts, and that's that they were causal in the perpetration of those acts..
--MarkusQ
Re:wow (Score:2, Informative)
Burning in the UK [capitalpunishmentuk.org] was a common method of executing criminals in the UK, regardless of whether the crime was religious in nature or not
Re:wow (Score:3, Informative)
The GP referred to "moderate religionists", not "moderate Muslims". A particular religion may have problems, but that doesn't mean that all religion has the same problems.
And for what it's worth, Muslims do condemn the violence: Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) wrote "The gross injustices of 9/11 and 7/7 exposed the distorted ideas and misdeeds of those who have turned from the path of Muhammad and his work in guiding humanity to peace and happiness. Victory in Islam is not to cause destruction; but to see people enter the religion in crowds, not running away from it!" link [mountainoflight.com], and many other Muslims have condemned such violence. But that doesn't reflect the consensus view of Islam that the media has constructed, so it doesn't get reported.
Re:If C++ is Islam (Score:3, Informative)
But frankly, I yet to see any well written large scale C++ project.
I supposed this depends on your definition of "well written". KDE/Qt is almost entirely C++. I believe that most higher level MS products like Office and Visual Studio are C++. You and I may not like MS, but some of their products do run well, though that doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of the code.
I believe Mozilla/Firefox has large amounts of C++ code, ss does OpenOffice.
I can say for sure that I run a lot more C++ programs on a daily basis than Java ones.
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
When you insult the pope, large mobs don't raise the placards demanding "behead those who insult Catholicism." They don't execute people on the streets or burn down embassies.
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
No, Blacks and Muslims aren't the same, because Black is not a choice, but Muslim is.
Re:wow (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:3, Informative)
"Muslims are more likely to kill..."
Fail.
The Muslim violence we see today is comparable to the troubles in Northern Ireland, scaled up proportionally to a larger population and land area. The difference is that the violence in N.I. was directed locally and at the UK, while the U.S. was a funding source for various factions. For the Muslim violence, the U.S. is the target, as well as the funding source (if you track the oil revenues back to the consumer).
If you want to see the epitome of religious violence look at the period starting with the rise of Islam, through the Crusades, the Catholic/Protestant reformation and counter-reformation that only wound down after the Holocaust. After the 18th century's "Age of Reason" and the American proclamation of religious liberty, the violence continued, but with rare exceptions (pogroms and genocides) it wasn't covered with a religious fig-leaf.
Humans have a natural tendency for war and violence. It has nothing to do with which god we worship (or don't worship). Religion is just a tool that war hawks use to justify their methods.
Complete procedure to convert to Judaism (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:3, Informative)
Please consider that: 1. Catholics are a subset of Christians, and 2. Fundamentalist is a descriptor, not a subcategory