3 ms·
The trouble with this analogy is that at some point an ATV comes along that’s much faster both on and off the road, but you’re still clinging to x86 because it’
by fossuser 7y ago
The trouble with this analogy is that at some point an ATV comes along that’s much faster both on and off the road, but you’re still clinging to x86 because it’s more powerful than the “high level” languages like C.
I generally agree with you, but I also suspect there’s a lot of room to improve the tools and it’s not always obvious when something is a paradigm shift in productivity or a dead end that will only work in tightly constrained use cases.
- ethbro 7y agoThis is the perfect metaphor and the one I use. Just because we can build a Ferrari doesn't mean that a Ferrari is efficient in all situations. We have race tracks (smooth, evenly surfaced roads), highways (generally smooth roads over long distances), city streets (some potholes), gravel roads, dirt roads, and no-roads. A tank isn't great for a race track. And a Ferrari isn't great for no-road. The author muddles up the question to make their point. What they're really saying is "no-code tools aren't a good fit for general purpose coding" (for all the reasons mentioned). Which seems fair and accurate. But all coding is not general purpose coding.