[gingerBill]

The article does no such thing and just focused on declaration syntaxes and semicolons. I can class literally any language into the three categories for declaring variables.

* Haskells are name-focused languages. * Smalltalk is a name-focused language. * LISPs are qualifier-focused languages.

I think you might have a blinkered viewpoint in how you have interpreted the article.

[jiriknesl]

I think you oversimplify things a bit.

Are those names erased during compilation? It has a massive impact.

If you have indirect calls, how are those resolved? That matters a lot.

What is even the language, after the code is compiled/interpreted. Does it disappear like in many languages? Do you have some parts available, but not all (like in PHP)? Or do you have full runtime at hand and you can mold it like in Smalltalk? There are languages with no runtime, languages with some runtime, and languages with full image in place. Each has massively different pros and cons.

When you say Haskell and Smalltalk are name focused, you are technically right, but developer experience is extremely different.

[hackyhacky]

> * Haskells are name-focused languages. * Smalltalk is a name-focused language. * LISPs are qualifier-focused languages.

First, I reject the idea that all languages can be classified according to this metric. The fact that you think that they can reveals how little experience you have with different languages.

Second, your proposed classification of these languages, even by the naive standards of the article, is wrong. You've proved my point.

[gingerBill]

First, tell me languages which have named value declarations which don't fit into that category. I'd love for my hypothesis to be proven wrong.

Second, how are they wrong? You haven't proved any point as you were extremely vague.

[hackyhacky]

You're missing the point. Your categories are irrelevant. It's like if I announced proudly "All cars can be divided three categories: those with rear lights angled up, those with rear lights angled down, and those with rear lights straight." True but useless.

But if you're going to categorize, your categorization is wrong. Just because a language puts a qualifier first in no way means that it is qualifier focused.

[gingerBill]

The categorizes are useful for understand how people perceive a language. It's a human psychology category, and just because you think it is "irrelevant" misunderstands why I made the categorical distinctions in the first place.

People actually talk this way about languages, and they already have this conception.

And I've just realized what your psychological hang-up is now too, the word "focused". I originally didn't use this term when I wrote the article in 2018, but a friend suggested the term instead because it was probably a little more "neutral". I honestly cannot remember what I used before now since I have just absorbed this arbitrary term "focused", even if the distinctions are useful.

You might not think this way about languages. I know I don't when I program. But I know this is how others things, and that's the entire aspect of design. Design is just so much about understanding humans. How they function, mentally and physically. Perception, psychology, sociology, physiology, ergonomics, needs, desires, etc. It's all about being able to put yourself in other people's shoes, more than making _the thing_.

And that's what I've been trying to understand and that categorization has been helpful for understand other people. I don't care if you think the categorizes are "irrelevant" but you are not "everyone".