Mine is that the useState hook is an actual plague on the entire React ecosystem. Regardless of your opinions of React, if you wanna use something then use it right.
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2026
371 points (95.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
33844 readers
1253 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
- If the mod doesn't find it funny, you're banned. Ha-ha!... For real: do not use the community for "statements". There are other places for such content. Keep it chill and funny.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wayland is not good.
Programming languages peaked with Lisp.
What is wrong with wayland.
It’s not as mature, feature rich and battle tested as xorg is. In a couple years maybe it’s as good, but as of right now, there are some incompatibility and missing feature issues.
Xorg is battle tested indeed. Tested and found critically lacking and unfixable in many aspects, security most of all.
In covering the use cases of X it became just as much a mess.
Which Lisp though?
Scheme, Common Lisp, Lisp2 or one of the countless others that are incompatible?
I prefer to use any Lisp rather than no Lisp. I enjoy Common Lisp and Elisp, and I sometimes teach using Racket.
Would you consider it a lisp if there are no macro support or lazy evaluation?
Two different things. What makes a programming language a Lisp is also neither of those two things. For me homoiconicity is one of the main features of a Lisp.
So any untyped S-expression grammar would be acceptable?
What are you trying to ask? It kind of feels like arguing with someone who’s trying to just find one mistake to say “aha!”.
I am just trying to get a feel for the boundaries of what you consider a Lisp. (Started by trying to narrow by named lisps, then common major dividing features and am now trying to use broader syntax categories).
So no argument, just honest curiosity.
In short, homoiconicity, a function type, expression based programming, a symbol type, and having no distinction between read, run and compile-time. If it looks like a lisp and sounds like a lisp, then it’s a lisp. All languages you mentioned are lisps. So is Clojure, Elisp, MacLisp etc etc.
Alright. Let's see you defend the opinion wayland is not good without asking an llm
I would tell you, if you didn’t directly go on the offensive and berate me for what? You thinking I’ll be using LLMs? No thank you. Go ask an LLM yourself.