3 ms·

A tool is a tool. It's immaterial if a particular tool like C++ and its ecosystem is no longer the best available tool for some applications. Workmen pick the t

A tool is a tool. It's immaterial if a particular tool like C++ and its ecosystem is no longer the best available tool for some applications. Workmen pick the tool that best suits their tasks, and if a better tool appears it makes no sense to assume that the old tool requires more attention.

adgasf 8y ago
C++ has many users that love the language but are in denial that other languages have advanced beyond it (not in all areas, of course, but enough areas that matter).
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  Do you use C++? I do, and I don't love the language. What I like about C++ is that it's a high level low level language. Anything that isn't is not a competitor in C++'s core application areas. D and OCaml come kinda close but they have (in practice) mandatory garbage collection. The only real alternatives are Ada (which somehow never achieved much mindshare) and Rust.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    I do, as native companion to Java and .NET, and I still kind of like it. However for my own use cases, my actual alternative is the newly founded love for low level programming support by Java and .NET designers. Mandatory GC is nice to have around, while only specific hotspots require a more machine friendly coding.
cuddlecake 8y ago
> Workmen pick the tool that best suits their tasks Workmen also carry the burden of maintaining old (legacy) products. No one would say no to a shiny new feature that makes tedious stuff easier.
loup-vaillant 8y ago
> A tool is a tool. Oh yes it is. Which means, a tool is an extension of oneself. We tend to identify ourselves with our tools, especially if they required extensive learning. The simplest tools (hammer) are easily replaced, but the more complex ones (my cello) are highly personal, and seldom swapped. Programming languages fall on the complex end of the spectrum. They require learning, and to some extent, what you learn is what you are. Throwing away a programming language (and its ecosystem) is throwing away a good chunk of the knowledge you acquired there —a part of yourself. A new language needs to have one hell of an advantage to get significant adoption under those conditions. And I didn't even talk about network effects…
jeffdavis 8y ago
Tools are generally independent. Using a particular screwdriver doesn't change the effectiveness of your hammer. Changing between programming languages is a bit more complicated than exchanging tools in a belt.

adgasf 8y ago

C++ has many users that love the language but are in denial that other languages have advanced beyond it (not in all areas, of course, but enough areas that matter).

ahartmetz 8y ago
Do you use C++? I do, and I don't love the language. What I like about C++ is that it's a high level low level language. Anything that isn't is not a competitor in C++'s core application areas. D and OCaml come kinda close but they have (in practice) mandatory garbage collection. The only real alternatives are Ada (which somehow never achieved much mindshare) and Rust.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  I do, as native companion to Java and .NET, and I still kind of like it. However for my own use cases, my actual alternative is the newly founded love for low level programming support by Java and .NET designers. Mandatory GC is nice to have around, while only specific hotspots require a more machine friendly coding.

cuddlecake 8y ago

> Workmen pick the tool that best suits their tasks Workmen also carry the burden of maintaining old (legacy) products. No one would say no to a shiny new feature that makes tedious stuff easier.

loup-vaillant 8y ago

> A tool is a tool. Oh yes it is. Which means, a tool is an extension of oneself. We tend to identify ourselves with our tools, especially if they required extensive learning. The simplest tools (hammer) are easily replaced, but the more complex ones (my cello) are highly personal, and seldom swapped. Programming languages fall on the complex end of the spectrum. They require learning, and to some extent, what you learn is what you are. Throwing away a programming language (and its ecosystem) is throwing away a good chunk of the knowledge you acquired there —a part of yourself. A new language needs to have one hell of an advantage to get significant adoption under those conditions. And I didn't even talk about network effects…

jeffdavis 8y ago

Tools are generally independent. Using a particular screwdriver doesn't change the effectiveness of your hammer. Changing between programming languages is a bit more complicated than exchanging tools in a belt.