3 ms·
I don’t see your point. What does the bugfreeness of historically used approaches have to do with it. The new kids on the block have to prove they are better in
by mlthoughts2018 6y ago
I don’t see your point. What does the bugfreeness of historically used approaches have to do with it. The new kids on the block have to prove they are better in some tangible way. The onus is not on established programming languages to prove anything.
As far as evidence is concerned, you’re not going to solve problems faster, safer, cheaper, more reliably or more extensibly with Rust or Haskell than you are with C or Python, apart from some very niche exceptions.
That just an empirical observation, not an opinion.
- wtetzner 6y ago> The onus is not on established programming languages to prove anything. Why is there no onus on "established" programming languages (whatever that means)? It's not like production software hasn't been shipped in Rust, Haskell, OCaml, etc. Just because C is older it gets a free pass? > As far as evidence is concerned I would argue there's plenty of evidence that languages with better type system are valuable. What we don't have is proof, but that's because nobody has figured out how to do the experiment(s).
- oalae5niMiel7qu 6y agoNo, it's because either nobody has figured out how to do the experiments, OR because their hypothesis is invalid and they merely haven't disproven it.
- wtetzner 6y agoSorry, I worded that poorly. What I should have said is that we don't have proof/disproof, because nobody has figured out how to do the experiment(s) needed to get there.