3 ms·
> That's like arguing mixing concrete by hand is "more efficient" because doing so allows you to be more frugal with concrete. No, that's more like saying mixi
by rakoo 8y ago
> That's like arguing mixing concrete by hand is "more efficient" because doing so allows you to be more frugal with concrete.
No, that's more like saying mixing concert by hand starts to become attractive because there's only one guy on Earth who knows how to operate a cement mixer. The alternative is crap, but it's easy to find people to do it.
- asdfman123 8y agoHonest question: do you really think we'd be better off using assembly for run-of-the-mill business logic applications, if there was a workforce that was well trained on it?
- rakoo 8y agoAssembly in itself is probably too low-level and doesn't have enough abstractions to be able to develop and maintain a typical business application, but the language itself isn't really the reason. What made companies switch to the cool kids that were Java, Python and Javascript is that the time it takes to learn these languages enough to be productive as a grunt developer is low. It's not so much about the workforce already being well trained or not (there definitely are experts in COBOL and other ancient languages), it's that getting new people up to speed is easy. They will mostly spend their time on the actual business logic instead of stumbling on syntax errors. This is the reason that makes me believe Go is going to be the new Java: a language with good enough performance, lots of safeguards preventing sloppiness to break, and a very very flat learning curve.