4 ms·
This is certainly not true. Evolution of programming languages is circumstantial. There are many flaws in all of the ones you had listed. The marginal cost of
by spectramax 7y ago
This is certainly not true. Evolution of programming languages is circumstantial. There are many flaws in all of the ones you had listed.
The marginal cost of deprecating something or breaking something is higher than the incremental cost of workarounds. This happens all the time from the laryngeal nerve in Giraffe to the evolution of a programming language, say JavaScript.
Please don’t mix good design with popularity. It’s a correlation/causation fallacy.
- chrstphrknwtn 7y agoLook close enough and everything is flawed. Evolution doesn’t ‘design’ anything, least of all anatomy. The ‘special power’ is that they have stuck around, for whatever reason or circumstance.
- spectramax 7y agoI never claimed that evolution “designs” something. In fact, I’m talking about the opposite - Evolution has no hindsight. Therefore, the marginal cost of undoing something is larger than incrementally adding or bolting on fixes.
- speedplane 7y ago> The marginal cost of deprecating something or breaking something is higher than the incremental cost of workarounds. So why are we in this python 2 to 3 mess?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]