4 ms·
> big software has to be formal to live longer and stay healthy Can’t disagree, but where are the languages for little software? For example, I write lots of s
by pansa2 5y ago
> big software has to be formal to live longer and stay healthy
Can’t disagree, but where are the languages for little software? For example, I write lots of small (100-1000 LoC) command-line tools. I’m not a full-time programmer, so I don’t have time to learn a complex language - what I ideally want is executable pseudocode.
Are there languages that fit that description? Python used to, but even it has now become very complex - because its designers are all employees of big companies working on big software.
- lifthrasiir 5y agoI suppose that'd be the original intended use of "scripting" languages. And we came to realize that things get start small but can grow significantly larger and we can no longer use those languages. Many languages that got initially advertised as scripting languages became much more complex partly in order to handle larger softwares. As such I'm not confident that your tools have zero potential to grow larger.
- Mikeb85 5y agoTry Ruby. It still fits the bill. And of course there's Perl 6 aka. Raku.
- bbkane 5y agoIsn't Raku considered an extremely complex language?
- lizmat 5y agoI wouldn't say that Raku is a complex language. Raku is a typical example of a programming language in which the *developers* of the language are tortured to make the *use* of the language much easier. A carefully balanced quantity of DWIM (Do What I Mean) without too much WAT, while having awesome error messages to help you get going and continue to be productive.
- robbedpeter 5y agoLua is phenomenal. AutoIt if you're on windows - it's underappreciated for sheer utility.
- machiaweliczny 5y agoFor CLI Go or Ruby. Go has nicer distribution.