4 ms·
Or shorten dev time, sure. I don't think those are necessarily bad things. The industry seems to have enough trouble as it is to recruit software devs. Can you
by simias 5y ago
Or shorten dev time, sure. I don't think those are necessarily bad things. The industry seems to have enough trouble as it is to recruit software devs. Can you imagine if you needed deep assembler mastery in order to develop a website? It would have hampered the development of the industry tremendously.
- PicassoCTs 5y agoJoke aside, imagine a language that is optimized, to allow for ease of later optimization. As in object orientated, fancy beginner level code goes in, and the hot-loop could be rewritten if needs be by a professional, without doing a complete data-orientated refactoring of the original code.
- hvidgaard 5y agoI don't think that is possible to be honest. I'd love it, but most sub optimal choices require extensive refactorings to work around. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
- Siira 5y agoThe current frontiers are nowhere near what is possible though; E.g., python, bash, ruby could be a lot faster if their development was subsidized by governments. Cpp doesn’t have a good package manager (and likely will not have one in the coming decade either). Go doesn’t have obvious features such as string interpolation and generics. Rust’s tooling still isn’t pleasant. ...
- elzbardico 5y agoADA and in a minor extent COBOL, were heavily subsidized by the government. Probably even PL/1
- TchoBeer 5y agoFrom my experience that's a bit like what Cpython is
- PicassoCTs 5y agoIt would be a set of two languages. One classic, defining operations, sets, flow direction. Then another, which defines containers and the (parallel) paths of execution.