4 ms·
Yeah, Ok. http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=v9kTVZiJ3Uc http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=v9kTVZiJ3Uc "A keyboard? How quaint!" Sure, it would be great if you cou
by binaryfinery 16y ago
Yeah, Ok. http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=v9kTVZiJ3Uc http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=v9kTVZiJ3Uc
"A keyboard? How quaint!"
Sure, it would be great if you could just describe what it is you are after, except for two problems:
1. Programmers out of a job.
2. How good are you at describing what you want? In English? You think an AI will be able to do it better than a lawyer?
What has this got to do with your point? Well, until that time, your productivity is going to be determined by the quality of your tools. You are going to need to iterate, test and refactor. To do that you need good tools, and good tools are hard to write for non-easily parsed languages. Compare the refactoring tools for C++ (limited) and Objective-C (ha ha) vs C# or Java. My productivity is double, tripple in Java and C# because I'm not spending my time moving characters around files - I'm programming.
http://blog.binaryfinery.com/?p=250 http://blog.binaryfinery.com/?p=250
- chc 16y agoYou're comparing four relatively similar C-family languages — it's not too surprising that tool support is the biggest difference here. Throw in Ruby or F# here if you really want to compare language quality vs. tool support.