2 ms·
> But empirically, it doesn't happen as often. It's sad that people use choice-of-language as a proxy for choice-of-execution-strategy (interpreted? JITed?), c
by quotemstr 10y ago
> But empirically, it doesn't happen as often.
It's sad that people use choice-of-language as a proxy for choice-of-execution-strategy (interpreted? JITed?), choice-of-allocation-strategy, choice-of-linking-strategy, choice-of-packaging, and so on. All of these factors should be orthogonal. By linking them, we create a lot of inefficiency by fragmenting our efforts.
AFAICT, C++ is the only language that's really been successful at being multi-paradigm.
- jerf 10y agoC++ still drives you very strongly in certain directions for the things you mentioned. Languages have to hand you very strong default choices for those things, because only the people with the hardest problems and the most time to solve them can afford to pick up a toolbox-box and build their own toolbox to solve a problem. Even the languages that arguably want to be that low of a level like Rust or D still have to offer a much more batteries-included standard library that will make more of those choices for you, and which will be for the vast majority of users the "real" version of that language.