3 ms·

I'm the opposite I'm cynic over languages simply adding more and more stuff. The new languages are simple like original languages started out but with a differ

I'm the opposite I'm cynic over languages simply adding more and more stuff. The new languages are simple like original languages started out but with a different set of simple principles that have learned about from the previous generation. Languages are just as much about they exclude, as well as what they include.

pjmlp 7y ago
Go is the latest example that starting simple and not adding features just doesn't work, if one wants to stay relevant on the market of programming languages.
- arethuza 7y ago
  I used Common Lisp for a number of years, which probably is the most sublime example of a "behemoth of opaque incantations" - I never really saw that as a problem though.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Me neither. Those features are there for a reason, everyone's 10% aren't the same, yet the language (product) needs to provide a solution for 100% of the user base.
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    While CL as described in Guy Steele's green book might have been expansive for it's time, It was utterly dwarfed by most of the "comprehensive" horizontal programming systems that came later. I'm specifically using 'system' as opposed to 'language' as reference to not just the core language syntax but including the canon APIs knowledge needed to claim a proficiency in developing in the language's ecosystem.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      But that's just because they come with a pile of libraries - the core of C# and .Net aren't that complex, there's just a lot of it. e.g. Compare how classes and objects work in .Net with CLOS and its MOP.
      - PeterStuer 7y ago
        But quantity brings its own complexity. When you are writing the code this is usually not a problem as you are selective in your patterns and features you employ. However, when you have to read other's code, you need to be aware of details and intricacies of coding styles, patterns and language features they employed and that might not be part of your daily toolbox. This is where 'there's just a lot of it' tends to becomes problematic. CLOS is a topic on its own. I loved it myself, as for me it aligned much more with the way my brain wrapped around an object paradigm and I felt the dispatching in what became a more traditional object approach from Smalltalk to Java and C# to be way too restrictive and therefore needing to resort quaint constructs for pretty basic composite things. But I do know this was not the most popular opinion.

pjmlp 7y ago

Go is the latest example that starting simple and not adding features just doesn't work, if one wants to stay relevant on the market of programming languages.

arethuza 7y ago
I used Common Lisp for a number of years, which probably is the most sublime example of a "behemoth of opaque incantations" - I never really saw that as a problem though.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Me neither. Those features are there for a reason, everyone's 10% aren't the same, yet the language (product) needs to provide a solution for 100% of the user base.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  While CL as described in Guy Steele's green book might have been expansive for it's time, It was utterly dwarfed by most of the "comprehensive" horizontal programming systems that came later. I'm specifically using 'system' as opposed to 'language' as reference to not just the core language syntax but including the canon APIs knowledge needed to claim a proficiency in developing in the language's ecosystem.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    But that's just because they come with a pile of libraries - the core of C# and .Net aren't that complex, there's just a lot of it. e.g. Compare how classes and objects work in .Net with CLOS and its MOP.
    - PeterStuer 7y ago
      But quantity brings its own complexity. When you are writing the code this is usually not a problem as you are selective in your patterns and features you employ. However, when you have to read other's code, you need to be aware of details and intricacies of coding styles, patterns and language features they employed and that might not be part of your daily toolbox. This is where 'there's just a lot of it' tends to becomes problematic. CLOS is a topic on its own. I loved it myself, as for me it aligned much more with the way my brain wrapped around an object paradigm and I felt the dispatching in what became a more traditional object approach from Smalltalk to Java and C# to be way too restrictive and therefore needing to resort quaint constructs for pretty basic composite things. But I do know this was not the most popular opinion.