3 ms·
They should not be a part of language, what for? Everything else you mentioned is about community only, and doesn't apply directly to the language. E.g. if yo
by mapcars 11y ago
They should not be a part of language, what for?
Everything else you mentioned is about community only, and doesn't apply directly to the language.
E.g. if you have a good language without a community, community can eventually grow, but you can use the language anyway.
If you have a bad language with great community - it doesn't reduce your suffering from the language itself.
- catnaroek 11y agoAgreed. Clojure isn't overall a bad language, but it has annoying quirks in a lot of places, presumably because it needs to be compatible with Java. The ones that annoy me the most are (0) `nil` and `false` being different, and (1) wonky arithmetic that uses Java's numeric types under the hood, unless you explicitly ask it not to.
- coldtea 11y ago>E.g. if you have a good language without a community, community can eventually grow, but you can use the language anyway. If you have a bad language with great community - it doesn't reduce your suffering from the language itself. My experience has been the inverse. I'd rather use a bad, or usually mediocre language WITH community, tooling, libs, books, programmers etc, than a better one where I'll be burdened by the lack of all of these. So, in a sense, community tramps inherent language qualities. After all that's the very basic message from Lisp and Smalltalk.