3 ms·
> I'm thinking about things like build systems and dependency managers. Ah, that's a different kind of tooling. This matters, but there are loads of developers
by phillipcarter 5y ago
> I'm thinking about things like build systems and dependency managers.
Ah, that's a different kind of tooling. This matters, but there are loads of developers out there who care just as much (if not more) about IDE tooling and other things that assist in the writing and refactoring of source code itself. Features like generics open up new ways to make this tooling better.
It's also worth pointing out that you can have your cake and eat it too. .NET and Rust are fine examples of having great build/package management tooling, runtime performance, compiler performance (.NET far more than Rust), artifact management, and so on. And great IDE tooling in different environments.
- throwaway894345 5y agoYes, I agree that IDE tooling is nice and that it doesn’t conflict with having good build tooling; my only point is that, given the choice between good tooling and generics (or any type system feature), I would choose the tooling hands down every single time.
- phillipcarter 5y agoWhy make it an either/or thing? We should demand more of corporate-controlled software. The money exists to make both a reality.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI was speaking about evaluating languages, especially existing ones. If you pick a language based on type system without considering other factors, you’ll end up in a bad place. If you pick a language with good tooling/ecosystem and a mediocre type system, you’ll still be in a pretty good place. As far as I know, there aren’t many general purpose languages with good type systems and tooling.