4 ms·
i had the following thought the other day, interesting if it has any validity: The availability of programmers who are proficient in a programming language is
by MichaelMoser123 5y ago
i had the following thought the other day, interesting if it has any validity:
The availability of programmers who are proficient in a programming language is the single most important factor in programming language adoption. I think the continued popularity of C++ and Java has much to do with the fact; an enterprise wants to treat programmers as interchangeable screws, and a less widespread programming language would make this practice much more difficult.
C++ was designed to be easier to learn by means of backward compatibility with C; This decision was good for programming language adoption; it was a good trade off, even at the expense of being a source of many issues with the language.
Interesting implication: I think that an enterprise with a less common programming language (like Scala or Rust), would have to treat its programmers much better than a competing shop that is using a commonly used platform like Java or C++; they have a greater investment in their workforce, due to the language/platform issue, are probably more likely to raise salaries every now and then and would be less likely to 'hire and fire'...
So adopting a less common programming language might have some non trivial implications on the culture and governance of an enterprise.
On the other hand there would be a lot of pressure to switch back to a more common programming language, in the event that the shop needs to grow significantly, these shops would then be inclined to port their systems back to a more common language...
- chrismorgan 5y agoFairly closely related: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
- jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 5y agoIt's fascinating how my (our?) opinion on Google has changed since 2004.
- MichaelMoser123 5y agorelated, though observed from different perspectives. But yes, they adopt 'weird languages' for hope of 'hiring the best', but that does that mean? The best according to what measure? I mean few people are 'the best' according to each criteria, there are so many of these criteria.