3 ms·
> I don't know how else to describe people who don't resent being second-class citizens under the library designers... One suggestion: describe them as "peopl
by chimeracoder 10y ago
> I don't know how else to describe people who don't resent being second-class citizens under the library designers...
One suggestion: describe them as "people who have a different opinion than I do", rather than automatically concluding that anyone who doesn't feel the same way as you do about something must be "mediocre". There are popular languages that I can't stand writing, and languages that I think are badly designed, but I would never be tempted to say that those languages are "for mediocre programmers" just because they don't have the attributes that I look for.
As a polyglot, I can definitively say that every language in widespread use is "missing" something in its design that, at first glance, would be glaringly obvious to someone who's used to a different language. If anything, the sign of a good programmer (as opposed to a mediocre one) is the ability to conceptualize why a language might be successful despite (or even because of) this apparent "flaw".
- coldtea 10y ago>One suggestion: describe them as "people who have a different opinion than I do" Some "different opinions" are just different opinions, other "different opinions" do indeed point to mediocre programmers. I'm not saying that is the case with Go: just that what you wrote is orthogonal. One can have a different opinion that is NOT to be respected, but dismissed. Not everything is equally valid.
- prodigal_erik 10y ago"How do I iterate over a slice?" "for...range." "How do I iterate over my own type?" "The hard way." "What interface can I implement to make for...range work?" "You can't. Our types are important enough to support properly, yours aren't." As a programmer I expect more than that, and I don't respect people who meekly agree that creating types is properly left to their betters.