4 ms·
Very interesting and you’re right that this is almost uniquely and most easily expressible in C, but if that makes C ‘weird’ I don’t understand what the point o
by aserafini 5y ago
Very interesting and you’re right that this is almost uniquely and most easily expressible in C, but if that makes C ‘weird’ I don’t understand what the point of the article is anymore.
By that definition all languages are ‘weird’ including Java and have uniquely expressible koans within them.
Maybe it boils down to ‘use the right tool for the job’, ie, the tool that lends itself best to the job at hand.
- arketyp 5y agoYes, weird depends. PG's point is, again, about finding new pockets of programming, not necessarily finding the best tool -- meta or not -- for a task at hand. Fine, everything is binary code in the end; it doesn't mean there aren't different abstractions that can be made on top of it, obviously. You are probably right that PG is biased towards "hacking" rather than team software engineering by him implying that the 99.5% of "glue programming" is boring. There is potential for a lot of mastery on the glue front, but this point about weirdness is about the remaining 0.5% and how to access it via the language route. Personally I'd be interested to hear what PG says about the weirdness of OOP...