3 ms·

The argument I take is that while you can write well-behaved and consistent code in any language, there is no language that forces you to do so. So picking a la

The argument I take is that while you can write well-behaved and consistent code in any language, there is no language that forces you to do so. So picking a language on the basis that it will force/encourage people to write well-behaved and consistent code--even if they don't want to/don't know how to/don't give a toss because they're a cheap contractor six time zones away--is a broken choice.

barrkel 16y ago
Programming languages are UIs. Your assertion is tantamount to saying that there is no such thing as a bad UI; that a choice between UIs is a broken choice, because you can still get your job done no matter what UI is there, or similarly you can still do a crappy job no matter what UI you use. But this is just wrong-headed thinking, to my mind. UI definitely influences user behaviour. One thing currently in vogue is game mechanics; the whole point of using game mechanics in your UI is to encourage certain kinds of behaviours, and it works, dagnabbit! Most UIs that have any coherence to them at all have a way of working with their grain, and many more ways of working against their grain. If they're good UIs, working with the grain ought to reduce your non-essential work load and make working a pleasure. If they're poor, you'll have to work against the grain, fighting the design, to get your job done. Programming languages are directly analogous to this.
- raganwald 16y ago
  I agree with everything you're saying about programming languages having a grain, and of making some things easy and other things hard. That's the general case. However, the two specifics we're talking about are well-behaved code and consistent code. Most language in theory make it ridiculously easy to re-use code, to make code DRY. Languages like Ruby actually give you more tools for making code consistent than languages like Java. Yet, there is a lot of awful Ruby code and some elegant Java code. I've seen some amazing assembler code. It seems that somehow languages don't seem to have a lot of influence over what we might call architecture. Perhaps the issue is that languages are hand tools, but programs are cathedrals. p.s. If I had to bet, I'd say there is more of a correlation between languages and architecture than a causal relationship. Paul wrote about this some time ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
  - chromatic 16y ago
    It seems that somehow languages don't seem to have a lot of influence over what we might call architecture. My instinct suggests instead that languages differ as to the standard deviation of quality of code written in them.

barrkel 16y ago

Programming languages are UIs. Your assertion is tantamount to saying that there is no such thing as a bad UI; that a choice between UIs is a broken choice, because you can still get your job done no matter what UI is there, or similarly you can still do a crappy job no matter what UI you use. But this is just wrong-headed thinking, to my mind. UI definitely influences user behaviour. One thing currently in vogue is game mechanics; the whole point of using game mechanics in your UI is to encourage certain kinds of behaviours, and it works, dagnabbit! Most UIs that have any coherence to them at all have a way of working with their grain, and many more ways of working against their grain. If they're good UIs, working with the grain ought to reduce your non-essential work load and make working a pleasure. If they're poor, you'll have to work against the grain, fighting the design, to get your job done. Programming languages are directly analogous to this.

raganwald 16y ago
I agree with everything you're saying about programming languages having a grain, and of making some things easy and other things hard. That's the general case. However, the two specifics we're talking about are well-behaved code and consistent code. Most language in theory make it ridiculously easy to re-use code, to make code DRY. Languages like Ruby actually give you more tools for making code consistent than languages like Java. Yet, there is a lot of awful Ruby code and some elegant Java code. I've seen some amazing assembler code. It seems that somehow languages don't seem to have a lot of influence over what we might call architecture. Perhaps the issue is that languages are hand tools, but programs are cathedrals. p.s. If I had to bet, I'd say there is more of a correlation between languages and architecture than a causal relationship. Paul wrote about this some time ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
- chromatic 16y ago
  It seems that somehow languages don't seem to have a lot of influence over what we might call architecture. My instinct suggests instead that languages differ as to the standard deviation of quality of code written in them.