3 ms·
Your point about "picking the right ones" is fair enough and of course the language can make some difference but not anywhere near the difference the architectu
by discreteevent 10y ago
Your point about "picking the right ones" is fair enough and of course the language can make some difference but not anywhere near the difference the architecture makes. Which is exactly what your point about CQRS outlines.
Google and Amazon built businesses on Java, a tool that is as boring as a hammer. It was the architecture that mattered.
- discreteevent 10y ago"In terms of programming-in-the-large, at Google and elsewhere, I think that language choice is not as important as all the other choices: if you have the right overall architecture, the right team of programmers, the right development process that allows for rapid development with continuous improvement, then many languages will work for you; if you don't have those things you're in trouble regardless of your language choice." - Peter Norvig https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1803815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1803815
- anko 10y agoYep I agree that architecture plays the largest part. But I really don't think it's about a language being boring vs not! Pure functions are easier to reason about. So it makes sense that a language that encourages their use will be easier to reason about - which will help with maintainability. Same goes for concurrency patterns - the closer they are to the language, the less room for mistakes. I think the same for testing, but a lot of the time it's up a layer of the stack with a framework.