9 ms·

There are a couple of problems with your perspective: 1. Even if re-implementation of libraries in new languages were free due to an excitement factor, real so

by pron 8y ago

There are a couple of problems with your perspective: 1. Even if re-implementation of libraries in new languages were free due to an excitement factor, real software is not built this way. New languages become old, and software needs maintenance. So what you get for free (supposing you're right) is not worth very much and not what counts, anyway. Most of the cost and value is in prolonged maintenance, which has to be done for multiple implementations in parallel. 2. It's reasonable to assume that work is never really free. But if we're hypothesizing about alternate realities, you may as well imagine that instead of new languages something else is invented to motivate you to do free work.

pythonaut_16 8y ago
And the flaw with your perspective is that if we all followed this advice, we might have a few highly polished bullet proof C libraries to use, but we'd still be stuck writing C and following all of its paradigms.
- jfoster 8y ago
  That's the interesting part. We're better off because of some but not all new languages having been invented.
  - runevault 8y ago
    Sure, but you have to have the bad attempts to learn things that don't work or we won't end up with the good ones. We fall into a local maximum instead of exploring farther and potentially going higher. Every dead end is another bit of the map explored when it comes to creating expressive languages. Now, is there an argument we'd be better off doing that exploration in a space designed to make DSLs easier than in building entirely new languages? That I dunno but it is worth considering.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
burntsushi 8y ago
I don't really appreciate the debate tactic of pretending that I made a stronger claim that I actually did. In particular, I didn't claim or imply that re-implementation of things was "free." It is much much easier to demonstrate that claim as ridiculous as opposed to the more measured perspective that I actually expressed. > real software is not built this way This is a bullshit say-nothing phrase. You're using "real software" to presumably denote some dichotomy of software that doesn't exist. If you asked 10 people to define what "real software" actually meant, you'd get 10 different definitions. They might agree on the extremes; but there's a whole mess of crap in the middle that we could endlessly debate about. > New languages become old, and software needs maintenance. So what you get for free (supposing you're right) is not worth very much and not what counts, anyway. Most of the cost and value is in prolonged maintenance, which has to be done for multiple implementations in parallel. This isn't clearly true at all. I mean, if you're going to talk about maintenance, then you also need to consider the impact of improved tools on the costs of maintenance. If a tool makes maintenance easier or less costly, then it's pretty hard to say anything definitive about long term costs. New tools can and do impact the usage of old tools, which in turn can have a direct impact on long term maintenance costs. > It's reasonable to assume that work is never really free. But if we're hypothesizing about alternate realities, you may as well imagine that instead of new languages something else is invented to motivate you to do free work. Absolutely! But that's not the argument I'm countering. I'm specifically countering the notion that new language development can be "irresponsible" because it "could" divert work away from other projects. What I'm saying is that it is not necessarily true at all. There is a more measured argument to be made here, but the OP did not make it. New ideas should be born and die in accordance with the resources of folks willing to keep them alive. We don't need some grand notion of "responsibility" to control the ebb and flow of ideas.
- pron 8y ago
  > You're using "real software" to presumably denote some dichotomy of software that doesn't exist. I think that what I meant was clear from context: software that has a long-term, significant impact. > then you also need to consider the impact of improved tools on the costs of maintenance Sure, but however much maintenance costs, it still needs to be done. It cannot be carried long by a novelty factor. > New ideas should be born and die in accordance with the resources of folks willing to keep them alive. We don't need some grand notion of "responsibility" to control the ebb and flow of ideas. I agree. Anyone should work on whatever they find interesting, and that (normally) doesn't make the choice irresponsible. But I still think that empirically new languages, on average, increasingly cost more and contribute less.

by pron 8y ago

pythonaut_16 8y ago

And the flaw with your perspective is that if we all followed this advice, we might have a few highly polished bullet proof C libraries to use, but we'd still be stuck writing C and following all of its paradigms.

jfoster 8y ago
That's the interesting part. We're better off because of some but not all new languages having been invented.
- runevault 8y ago
  Sure, but you have to have the bad attempts to learn things that don't work or we won't end up with the good ones. We fall into a local maximum instead of exploring farther and potentially going higher. Every dead end is another bit of the map explored when it comes to creating expressive languages. Now, is there an argument we'd be better off doing that exploration in a space designed to make DSLs easier than in building entirely new languages? That I dunno but it is worth considering.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

burntsushi 8y ago

I don't really appreciate the debate tactic of pretending that I made a stronger claim that I actually did. In particular, I didn't claim or imply that re-implementation of things was "free." It is much much easier to demonstrate that claim as ridiculous as opposed to the more measured perspective that I actually expressed. > real software is not built this way This is a bullshit say-nothing phrase. You're using "real software" to presumably denote some dichotomy of software that doesn't exist. If you asked 10 people to define what "real software" actually meant, you'd get 10 different definitions. They might agree on the extremes; but there's a whole mess of crap in the middle that we could endlessly debate about. > New languages become old, and software needs maintenance. So what you get for free (supposing you're right) is not worth very much and not what counts, anyway. Most of the cost and value is in prolonged maintenance, which has to be done for multiple implementations in parallel. This isn't clearly true at all. I mean, if you're going to talk about maintenance, then you also need to consider the impact of improved tools on the costs of maintenance. If a tool makes maintenance easier or less costly, then it's pretty hard to say anything definitive about long term costs. New tools can and do impact the usage of old tools, which in turn can have a direct impact on long term maintenance costs. > It's reasonable to assume that work is never really free. But if we're hypothesizing about alternate realities, you may as well imagine that instead of new languages something else is invented to motivate you to do free work. Absolutely! But that's not the argument I'm countering. I'm specifically countering the notion that new language development can be "irresponsible" because it "could" divert work away from other projects. What I'm saying is that it is not necessarily true at all. There is a more measured argument to be made here, but the OP did not make it. New ideas should be born and die in accordance with the resources of folks willing to keep them alive. We don't need some grand notion of "responsibility" to control the ebb and flow of ideas.

pron 8y ago
> You're using "real software" to presumably denote some dichotomy of software that doesn't exist. I think that what I meant was clear from context: software that has a long-term, significant impact. > then you also need to consider the impact of improved tools on the costs of maintenance Sure, but however much maintenance costs, it still needs to be done. It cannot be carried long by a novelty factor. > New ideas should be born and die in accordance with the resources of folks willing to keep them alive. We don't need some grand notion of "responsibility" to control the ebb and flow of ideas. I agree. Anyone should work on whatever they find interesting, and that (normally) doesn't make the choice irresponsible. But I still think that empirically new languages, on average, increasingly cost more and contribute less.