3 ms·
I can't agree. (BTW, I don't like K, and I don't use it, but if I did I'd like to think I'd be productive in it.) This little system runs circles around entir
by carapace 7y ago
I can't agree. (BTW, I don't like K, and I don't use it, but if I did I'd like to think I'd be productive in it.)
This little system runs circles around entire sub-industries of other software. The fact that it exists and uses one or two orders of magnitude less time and code than other systems is significant.
It's like axes vs. chainsaws. If the job is to log a forest the latter will be better than the former.
- Nursie 7y agoLess code is entirely irrelevant unless for some reason you're concerned about a few k of storage for your source, less time appears to be speculation. If people can make working, maintainable software other ways, particularly if those other ways have large, established ecosystems of dependencies, then they are likely doing it right regardless of how much you like apl.
- carapace 7y agoAgain, I don't like APL. Less code -> fewer bugs, all other things equal, eh? > large, established ecosystems of dependencies ...are actually a symptom of failure to refactor. Ideally, over time, you code base approaches the Kolmogorov complexity of the problems it solves. > If people can make working, maintainable software other ways ... ...but it takes 10x-100x more code, RAM, CPU power, developer time, etc. than if you hadda used K, then you're leaving money on the table.