3 ms·
There's no BS to call here. The point of the post is to show diminishing returns are occurring with ever evolving languages. The argument one should use X lang
by kordless 10y ago
There's no BS to call here.
The point of the post is to show diminishing returns are occurring with ever evolving languages. The argument one should use X language because you can develop in it faster is increasingly not useful to discuss. You are stuck in the weeds arguing X will always win, when the point is there's nothing to win.
- xentronium 10y agoI disagree. Many programming languages are here just because they're good enough, not because they are perfect. For example, C is a good enough systems language. However, when compared to Rust, it's worse at most important criteria, including being more error-prone and less expressive (it's absurdly simple, though). Now you say there's nothing to win, but to me the advantages are obvious: I can avoid several classes of critical vulnerabilities and at the same time not substantially lose any performance. How would that be possible without search for the holy language grail?
- adwn 10y ago> it's absurdly simple, though C is only "absurdly simple" as long as you don't touch undefined behavior, which is nearly impossible in non-trivial programs.