4 ms·
That would be true if changing programming languages or adding new languages would be zero-cost. Then we could iterate fast to some close-to-ideal language. Th
by blub 10y ago
That would be true if changing programming languages or adding new languages would be zero-cost. Then we could iterate fast to some close-to-ideal language.
This black and white thinking is just a sign of immaturity, not of knowledge of a deeper truth.
All mainstream languages are capable of delivering business value. I happen to prefer certain characteristics that led me to C++, but I also found Java to be quite fine. I don't think I'd mind doing PHP or even JS for an interesting project. I've done both in the past.
I'm not saying we should be completely dispassionate about our tools, it's normal to have likes (I do like C++). But hating languages is rather pathetic and unhealthy.
- rubber_duck 10y agoI don't hate C++, saying rust offers nothing other than memory safety is just wrong, just by being a modern language with zero cost abstractions with stuff expected of modern languages such as modules, package management, sane build system, potential for lower compile times, etc. It's not hard justifying costs of migration when considering C++ problems if something replaces it adequately. Rust has the potential to do that.