4 ms·

The fact is that it takes effort to launch a new programming language beyond just writing some code and the long term commitment should be there if you are goin

by a_imho 8y ago

The fact is that it takes effort to launch a new programming language beyond just writing some code and the long term commitment should be there if you are going to let other people run their production systems on what you throw into the world. From my admittedly limited knowledge JavaScript seems to contradict this claim. I don't agree with the article either, one could make the same argument for every piece of new code written.

fnord123 8y ago
>I don't agree with the article either, one could make the same argument for every piece of new code written. No you can't. The issue is that languages generally have their own runtime and object linkage system. If you create a new one that doesn't play nicely with C linkage/runtime, JVM, .Net, or compiles down to javascript (or wasm) then you are creating an entirely new platform and this creates the fragmentation. For example, Python and Rust play nicely with C linkage. Scala runs on the JVM. These play nicely with other systems. You can have Python code that calls Rust code that calls C code and it all fits together. But you may struggle to have Python code calling Lua code calling Julia code. "every piece of code written" doesn't have this problem at all. If you write something in an existing language then you are contributing to that ecosystem instead of making a new ecosystem. And if you are making a new ecosystem, for pity's sake please consider making that ecosystem play nicely with at least one existing ecosystem.
jacquesm 8y ago
JavaScript is a pretty good example of a language that overshot its goal and that would have benefited from evaluating the cost of its release. It was put together in a hurry, without much in terms of forethought and we're paying the price every day. > I don't agree with the article either, one could make the same argument for every piece of new code written. So you do agree. Yes, you could make the same argument for every piece of code, and that's precisely the point, the author chose to use programming languages where the problem is the the least visible. But that does not invalidate the point, it strengthens it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by a_imho 8y ago

fnord123 8y ago

>I don't agree with the article either, one could make the same argument for every piece of new code written. No you can't. The issue is that languages generally have their own runtime and object linkage system. If you create a new one that doesn't play nicely with C linkage/runtime, JVM, .Net, or compiles down to javascript (or wasm) then you are creating an entirely new platform and this creates the fragmentation. For example, Python and Rust play nicely with C linkage. Scala runs on the JVM. These play nicely with other systems. You can have Python code that calls Rust code that calls C code and it all fits together. But you may struggle to have Python code calling Lua code calling Julia code. "every piece of code written" doesn't have this problem at all. If you write something in an existing language then you are contributing to that ecosystem instead of making a new ecosystem. And if you are making a new ecosystem, for pity's sake please consider making that ecosystem play nicely with at least one existing ecosystem.

jacquesm 8y ago

JavaScript is a pretty good example of a language that overshot its goal and that would have benefited from evaluating the cost of its release. It was put together in a hurry, without much in terms of forethought and we're paying the price every day. > I don't agree with the article either, one could make the same argument for every piece of new code written. So you do agree. Yes, you could make the same argument for every piece of code, and that's precisely the point, the author chose to use programming languages where the problem is the the least visible. But that does not invalidate the point, it strengthens it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]