3 ms·

I think the dichotomy is from 'pg in this case. I myself like using languages with a balance between the two extremes - Python, being neither the stereotypicall

by geofft 8y ago

I think the dichotomy is from 'pg in this case. I myself like using languages with a balance between the two extremes - Python, being neither the stereotypically enterprisey Java nor the stereotypically write-only Perl, being a good example. They allow me to be productive with single-person projects without overhead, and they're also suited to being used for large-scale projects once you start imposing some structure. The only thing is you have to be willing to start imposing some structure at some point, and the language has to make that easy, too. It can't be solely suited for the single hacker; it can't have been designed under the assumption that a language for use by large teams of people dispersed over time and space is one designed for "mediocre programmers," and so the things such a language values must be categorically avoided.

pdimitar 8y ago
> it can't have been designed under the assumption that a language for use by large teams of people dispersed over time and space is one designed for "mediocre programmers," I don't know why people find this an offensive statement. EVERY craft on this planet has a pretty small (in terms of percentage) group of people who just grok it and "get it" fantastically well, and everybody else in the profession is pretty average. That's nothing to be offended at: the bell curve distribution is in full effect there. Perfectly normal, no? And I would argue with you that some languages -- Go being the most modern example -- are specifically designed to be an easy onboard for people with certain backgrouns (C/C++/Java). That Java has been designed to be an easy onboard for people with C/C++ experience is pretty much a documented historical fact at this point as well. Large companies optimize for quantity, not quality. There's nothing shameful in admitting: "we need a horde of not-amazing programmers who we can treat as interchangeable nuts and bolts"... yet everybody is denying it, when reality clearly shows that's their exact attitude... really makes me wonder why people keep insisting on keeping that circus alive and well (I also heard managers speak of people like that, in expensive saunas and restaurants -- and they were talking quite loudly). Most corporations don't need craftsmen and artisans; they need prentices who build houses with already-made plans. I am asking for the umpteenth time -- why is this such a bad thing to admit? We cannot all be amazing programmers in each and every way. We have to stop denying this reality. > I myself like using languages with a balance between the two extremes Same, that's why I code Elixir: it's FP alright but not "pure" -- has side effects but the edges are clearly documented. And we can't get anything done without side effects anyway. So it's like 95% FP and 5% everything else, in the right places. Perfect. > I think the dichotomy is from 'pg in this case. I don't know enough about @pg to claim anything but whatever he said, that's no excuse for everybody else to start gravitating into camps. When people ask me "do you hate Java or do you hate C#?", you know what I say? "I hate the people who hate programmers based on what they work with."
- winrid 8y ago
  Because if they admitted it it would hurt public image right? Also I do not think this is how you build a great company. It's one way to build a company, but it's not a very good way for the long term.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    Well I guess their PR would suffer, yeah. It just strikes me as so funny -- at 38 year old -- how so much of our world is pretending you don't do stuff for reasons X and Y while everybody knows you do those things for exactly those reasons. It's absurd and funny. As for how to build companies, I wouldn't know, not a big business owner. But I am guessing from certain point and on they just want to commoditize stuff and make their management easier and quicker. It all starts with good intentions on paper and always ends up with horrific and dyfunctional teams. I have only seen 3 exceptions for 17 years of career of which 9.5 were spent in offices.

by geofft 8y ago

pdimitar 8y ago

> it can't have been designed under the assumption that a language for use by large teams of people dispersed over time and space is one designed for "mediocre programmers," I don't know why people find this an offensive statement. EVERY craft on this planet has a pretty small (in terms of percentage) group of people who just grok it and "get it" fantastically well, and everybody else in the profession is pretty average. That's nothing to be offended at: the bell curve distribution is in full effect there. Perfectly normal, no? And I would argue with you that some languages -- Go being the most modern example -- are specifically designed to be an easy onboard for people with certain backgrouns (C/C++/Java). That Java has been designed to be an easy onboard for people with C/C++ experience is pretty much a documented historical fact at this point as well. Large companies optimize for quantity, not quality. There's nothing shameful in admitting: "we need a horde of not-amazing programmers who we can treat as interchangeable nuts and bolts"... yet everybody is denying it, when reality clearly shows that's their exact attitude... really makes me wonder why people keep insisting on keeping that circus alive and well (I also heard managers speak of people like that, in expensive saunas and restaurants -- and they were talking quite loudly). Most corporations don't need craftsmen and artisans; they need prentices who build houses with already-made plans. I am asking for the umpteenth time -- why is this such a bad thing to admit? We cannot all be amazing programmers in each and every way. We have to stop denying this reality. > I myself like using languages with a balance between the two extremes Same, that's why I code Elixir: it's FP alright but not "pure" -- has side effects but the edges are clearly documented. And we can't get anything done without side effects anyway. So it's like 95% FP and 5% everything else, in the right places. Perfect. > I think the dichotomy is from 'pg in this case. I don't know enough about @pg to claim anything but whatever he said, that's no excuse for everybody else to start gravitating into camps. When people ask me "do you hate Java or do you hate C#?", you know what I say? "I hate the people who hate programmers based on what they work with."

winrid 8y ago
Because if they admitted it it would hurt public image right? Also I do not think this is how you build a great company. It's one way to build a company, but it's not a very good way for the long term.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  Well I guess their PR would suffer, yeah. It just strikes me as so funny -- at 38 year old -- how so much of our world is pretending you don't do stuff for reasons X and Y while everybody knows you do those things for exactly those reasons. It's absurd and funny. As for how to build companies, I wouldn't know, not a big business owner. But I am guessing from certain point and on they just want to commoditize stuff and make their management easier and quicker. It all starts with good intentions on paper and always ends up with horrific and dyfunctional teams. I have only seen 3 exceptions for 17 years of career of which 9.5 were spent in offices.