3 ms·
I think people should use all of them. Some problems are much better expressed with logic programming, others with inheritance, others with polymorphic function
by dan-robertson 7y ago
I think people should use all of them. Some problems are much better expressed with logic programming, others with inheritance, others with polymorphic functions.
There is one school which says people ought to be giving a powerful programming language to better write powerful programs in the best way. The idea is to amplify what a single programmer can produce.
Another school says you should give programmers a non-powerful language because they aren’t to be trusted. The goal is to make changing enormous codebases easy (or maybe to maximise lines of code).
Perl fits into the first category and java is representative of the second. So I think this argument isn’t so much about Perl as it is a complaint about its philosophy. It could equally go on an article about the next c++ feature.
- pjc50 7y agoI'd like a definition of "powerful" that is more than just "agrees with my personal prejudices"; Perl lacks the power of a strongly checked type system, for example.
- tadzik_ 7y agoAll the examples in the post are written in Perl 6 though, which does not lack it.
- 0x445442 7y agoAny business problems that can be shown, objectively, to be better solved by one paradigm versus another can also be isolated into its own code base/module where said paradigm is canonical and ubiquitous. The problem is, this rarely happens and with a language like Perl and Java you end up with a mish mosh of hard to reason about code bases because the authors at the time were just trying to muddle through as best they could with whatever approach resonated with them.