4 ms·

Every day I see people avoiding entire interesting languages for bad reasons. Little things they are used to and don’t yet know how to work around the change, b

Every day I see people avoiding entire interesting languages for bad reasons. Little things they are used to and don’t yet know how to work around the change, but you would learn and it would be fine. parens braces semicolons operator overloading generics etc the lack or presence of these things are never deal breakers, it can be worth trying to adjust because maybe you will find 900 things you love about the new way that make up for the one or two things you think you can’t stand.

jolux 5y ago
I’ve yet to find the perfect language but that doesn’t mean I’m satisfied with the imperfections that exist in the ones I use. It’s perfectly reasonable to not use a language for lack of operator overloading. I personally avoid languages developed with contempt for functional programming and type systems. We all have our reasons.
- seg_lol 5y ago
  Python wants you back in 3.10
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    Not until it gets its static typing act together, and runs faster than a 1-legged dog.
    - seg_lol 5y ago
      Python 3.11 has its eye on you.
ByteJockey 5y ago
> the lack or presence of these things are never deal breakers Sure, but it can definitely break a tie. Frankly, operator overloading can create some really nice apis. And code that's pleasing to read takes less mental overhead to pick up.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  Yes and no. I'd take a non-operator overloaded API any time of the abuse operator overloading is used for in the Haskell ecosystem.
adamdusty 5y ago
I've used zig for projects before. It's a nice language with some improvements on C, just not ones I care about. I did adjust, finished the projects I was doing, and I decided to move on to something else. I had a problems with the C interop as well. It's likely that I was doing something wrong, but the documentation is poor and I want something that just works. Again, the language is great. It's a young project. I'm glad you like it. Andrew seems to have a very firm idea of where Zig is headed. It's just not for me, in part because operator overloading is not a "little thing" for me.
- dnautics 5y ago
  What projects did you finish? Do you have any links? Curious to know what people do and don't have trouble with, would be nice to see some naive code

jolux 5y ago

I’ve yet to find the perfect language but that doesn’t mean I’m satisfied with the imperfections that exist in the ones I use. It’s perfectly reasonable to not use a language for lack of operator overloading. I personally avoid languages developed with contempt for functional programming and type systems. We all have our reasons.

seg_lol 5y ago
Python wants you back in 3.10
- IshKebab 5y ago
  Not until it gets its static typing act together, and runs faster than a 1-legged dog.
  - seg_lol 5y ago
    Python 3.11 has its eye on you.

ByteJockey 5y ago

> the lack or presence of these things are never deal breakers Sure, but it can definitely break a tie. Frankly, operator overloading can create some really nice apis. And code that's pleasing to read takes less mental overhead to pick up.

wirrbel 5y ago
Yes and no. I'd take a non-operator overloaded API any time of the abuse operator overloading is used for in the Haskell ecosystem.

adamdusty 5y ago

I've used zig for projects before. It's a nice language with some improvements on C, just not ones I care about. I did adjust, finished the projects I was doing, and I decided to move on to something else. I had a problems with the C interop as well. It's likely that I was doing something wrong, but the documentation is poor and I want something that just works. Again, the language is great. It's a young project. I'm glad you like it. Andrew seems to have a very firm idea of where Zig is headed. It's just not for me, in part because operator overloading is not a "little thing" for me.

dnautics 5y ago
What projects did you finish? Do you have any links? Curious to know what people do and don't have trouble with, would be nice to see some naive code