4 ms·

Is it possible to optimize too much for experts, and sacrifice learning curve too much?

erik_seaberg 5y ago
If you can’t retain any or the project is short-term, I suppose. Probably nobody could learn a new language just for a hackathon.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Then they are quite bad developers, because that is exactly what a team of ours did in a two day hackacton. Some learned C++ on the Arduino, some went with TypeScript and Angular, others with JavaScript and AWS Lambdas, together we got a robot arm to pick and drop pieces with a Web dashboard and remote control, talking with each other via the "cloud". Naturally all of them had several years of coding experience, but in other languages.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    It's definitely going to vary according to your familiarity with other languages in the family. I came into a C# shop late last year from never touching C# before and was writing more or less idiomatic C# very quickly, but I've worked with lots of semi-colon languages so this is mostly familiar territory. On the other hand if you've never seen a Lisp before, ten years of C++ and VisualBasic won't prepare you to get anything much done in Scheme. Your reflexes are all wrong, and that's going to take some unwinding before you're productive. Also, people will hate it if you oblige them to use language A they don't know and which is poorly suited to the problem when they know language B that's well suited. Even if you've got a sane business rationale (e.g. bus factor, they're the only person who knows B in your organisation) they're going to spend a lot of time moaning about how terrible it is at this job they could do better. I do not like C++ but I'm immediately dubious about whether I'd rather try to control a robot arm from Javascript. Is there an option where I just have my foot surgically removed by people who know what they're doing? I guess maybe if the robot manages most of this itself and I'm really only overseeing it the Javascript is less awful, but if there's an actual real time control loop I feel like I'm very much between a rock and a hard place.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      It was an hackton, so all of that was throwaway code anyway.
TheMonarchist 5y ago
C++ before 2011 springs to mind. From "Direction for ISO C++"[1]: "C++ is expert-friendly, but it cannot be just expert-friendly without losing important streams of new talent. This was the case before C++11 and C++11 reversed that negative trend." [1]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2000r3.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p200...
- shadowofneptune 5y ago
  I do rather wish C++ 11 was a blank slate for that reason. Not really, as that'd kill C++, but there's so much good about C++ that is held back by its backwards compatibility with C and the dark ages of pre-11 C++. Data types and features are intended as best practice, but it's stuffed away in libraries since it can't replace the core of the language.
  - Animats 5y ago
    C++ evolution since Rust came along has been amusing. Finally, the C++ designers take safety seriously, now that there's a competitive threat. Until a decade ago, they didn't. I used to argue with some of the committee members over that. The trouble is, C++ does safety by using templates to paper over the underlying C memory model. This never quite works. The mold always seeps through the wallpaper. Raw pointers are needed for too many APIs.
Jensson 5y ago
Languages don't get popular unless they are very easy to learn, so no language popular today almost surely is biased in favor of learning curve and against complexity. We probably need some big industrywide intervention to create the optimal level of complexity in languages as I doubt even C++ is too complex to be optimal if you consider that you work 40 years in a career. It would work by just having a couple of standard languages so developers don't need to learn so many languages, then they spend a lot of time learning those until they are fluent and then they don't have to learn anything new about programming languages for the rest of their lives, very efficient.
- TheMonarchist 5y ago
  > It would work by just having a couple of standard languages so developers don't need to learn so many languages, then they spend a lot of time learning those until they are fluent and then they don't have to learn anything new about programming languages for the rest of their lives, very efficient. Programming methodology continues to evolve and languages need to address it to stay relevant.
MathMonkeyMan 5y ago
Yes, as the creator of C++ has said [1] before. Personally, I'd also distinguish between "complicated over time" and "complicated by default." For example, Clojure has a minimal syntax and instead uses a large vocabulary of terse primitive procedures. If you don't know the primitives, it's "complicated." A different example is Rust, which has many features expressed in syntax. If you haven't learned all of the syntax, it's "complicated." Compare these with C++, which began as a small set of extensions to a stronger-typed C, but has gradually grown into a family of sub-languages, each added for a particular purpose, and all interacting with each other (sometimes beautifully, other times horribly -- knowing the difference is "complicated"). [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-problem-with-c/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-problem-with-c/
BigJono 5y ago
I don't think so, if you assume that learning is a linear thing and at the end of it you improve as a dev. But the problem is that learning isn't one curve, it's a bunch of them and most of them lead to dead ends or even turn backwards after a while. If you bloat out a language, what happens is that some subset of devs (like, maybe 10%) write really great code and have all the tools they'll ever need to do so. And the other 90% learn a chaotic mix of good and bad practices from each other, without the ability to properly distinguish them, and eventually reach some local maxima amongst themselves of overcomplicated "average" code that's shittier than I imagine it would be if they just kept the language simple.
lmm 5y ago
I certainly doubt any extant language actually does it, and also fundamentally there may just not be so much that's worth building into a general-purpose language. The most extreme examples I can think of are something like Haskell (which takes, what, a weekend to be able to write code in?) or maybe APL (which takes, what, maybe two months?). A language that was truly expert-oriented might take as long to learn as human languages do, or longer - certainly, for something you use your whole career, that much up-front effort would be worthwhile. But are there even enough distinct general-purpose constructs to fill that much time?
- iopq 5y ago
  Try learning Rust, then you reach this point https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39558633/higher-rank-lifetimes-and-generics-not-playing-nicely https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39558633/higher-rank-lif... I still don't understand what higher rank lifetime bound means and this affects whether I can write code that actually compiles
  - lmm 5y ago
    When I was writing my comment I thought about Scala, where I was certainly learning useful new techniques 7 years into using the language, but that wasn't really about learning new parts of the language. I think Rust has picked an overly specific way to represent lifetimes, that makes them more of a special case than they should be. But maybe that distinction doesn't actually matter. (Higher rank lifetime bounds are like higher rank types, it might be easier to understand those first and then understand Rust's weird special case version of them afterwards)
    - pornel 5y ago
      Rust is in this weird place, because it needs to be palatable to C/C++ programmers. C has pointers and a vague notion of their lifetimes, but barely any type system to speak of. That's the lens through which Rust needs to present the problem.
yxhuvud 5y ago
Yes, if nothing else because the problems that are solved shifts over time, as do preferred solutions. So if it is too optimized, there is a risk of churn.
gcanyon 5y ago
There are certainly languages that test whether this is possible. J comes to mind: https://www.jsoftware.com/#/README https://www.jsoftware.com/#/README Here's something like the tenth or fifteenth chunk of code I wrote in J. It solves a programming puzzle. I doubt people who have mastered J would call it well-written, but it solves the problem. list=:_9]\33 30 10 _6 18 _7 _11 23 _6 16 _19 9 _26 _8 _19 _8 _21 _14 17 12 _14 31 _30 13 _13 19 16 _6 _11 1 17 _12 _4 _7 14 _21 18 _31 34 _22 17 _19 20 24 6 33 _18 17 _15 31 _5 3 27 _3 _18 _20 _18 31 6 4 _2 _12 24 27 14 4 _29 _3 5 _29 8 _12 _15 _7 _23 23 _9 _8 6 8 _12 33 _23 _19 _4 _8 _7 11 _12 31 _20 19 _15 _30 11 32 7 14 _5 _23 18 _32 _2 _31 _7 8 24 16 32 _4 _10 _14 _6 _1 0 23 23 25 0 _23 22 12 28 _27 15 4 _30 _13 _16 _3 _3 _32 _3 27 _31 22 1 26 4 _2 _13 26 17 14 _9 _18 3 _20 _27 _32 _11 27 13 _17 33 _7 19 _32 13 _31 _2 _24 _31 27 _31 _29 15 2 29 _15 33 _18 _23 15 28 0 30 _4 12 _32 _3 34 27 _25 _18 26 1 34 26 _21 _31 _10 _13 _30 _17 _12 _26 31 23 _31 _19 21 _17 _10 2 _23 23 _3 6 0 _3 _32 0 _10 _25 14 _19 9 14 _27 20 15 _5 _27 18 11 _6 24 7 _17 26 20 _31 _25 _25 4 _16 30 33 23 _4 _4 23 sumOfRows =: ([: +/"1 [: |: ] \* [: |: _1 + 2 \* [: #: [: i. 2 ^ #)"1 list rowSigns =: (;/@:,/@:>)"2 {|:(_1;_1 1;1) {~ (_1&<+0&<) sumOfRows candidates =:,/((_4]\4#"3 (_1 + 2 \* #:i.2^9) (\* &. |:)" 1 _ list) \* (>rowSigns)) theAnswers =: (] #~ [: (0&<@:+/@:(0&<) \* \*/@:(_1&<)) [: |: +/"2) candidates theSums =: +/"1 +/"1 theAnswers theBestAnswer =: ~. ((theSums = ] theBestSum =: <./ theSums) # theAnswers) In case anyone wants an explanation: https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/a-solution-to-einavs-programming-puzzle/ https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/a-solution-to-einav...
62951413 5y ago
Haskell comes to mind. In all seriousness, not really. Learning curve doesn't matter for a language that we'll pay your bills for the next twenty years. And once you fully internalize a JVM/.NET-level platform or Scala/C++-level language a lot of that will be reusable in learning others.

If you can’t retain any or the project is short-term, I suppose. Probably nobody could learn a new language just for a hackathon.

pjmlp 5y ago
Then they are quite bad developers, because that is exactly what a team of ours did in a two day hackacton. Some learned C++ on the Arduino, some went with TypeScript and Angular, others with JavaScript and AWS Lambdas, together we got a robot arm to pick and drop pieces with a Web dashboard and remote control, talking with each other via the "cloud". Naturally all of them had several years of coding experience, but in other languages.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  It's definitely going to vary according to your familiarity with other languages in the family. I came into a C# shop late last year from never touching C# before and was writing more or less idiomatic C# very quickly, but I've worked with lots of semi-colon languages so this is mostly familiar territory. On the other hand if you've never seen a Lisp before, ten years of C++ and VisualBasic won't prepare you to get anything much done in Scheme. Your reflexes are all wrong, and that's going to take some unwinding before you're productive. Also, people will hate it if you oblige them to use language A they don't know and which is poorly suited to the problem when they know language B that's well suited. Even if you've got a sane business rationale (e.g. bus factor, they're the only person who knows B in your organisation) they're going to spend a lot of time moaning about how terrible it is at this job they could do better. I do not like C++ but I'm immediately dubious about whether I'd rather try to control a robot arm from Javascript. Is there an option where I just have my foot surgically removed by people who know what they're doing? I guess maybe if the robot manages most of this itself and I'm really only overseeing it the Javascript is less awful, but if there's an actual real time control loop I feel like I'm very much between a rock and a hard place.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    It was an hackton, so all of that was throwaway code anyway.

TheMonarchist 5y ago

C++ before 2011 springs to mind. From "Direction for ISO C++"[1]: "C++ is expert-friendly, but it cannot be just expert-friendly without losing important streams of new talent. This was the case before C++11 and C++11 reversed that negative trend." [1]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2000r3.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p200...

shadowofneptune 5y ago
I do rather wish C++ 11 was a blank slate for that reason. Not really, as that'd kill C++, but there's so much good about C++ that is held back by its backwards compatibility with C and the dark ages of pre-11 C++. Data types and features are intended as best practice, but it's stuffed away in libraries since it can't replace the core of the language.
- Animats 5y ago
  C++ evolution since Rust came along has been amusing. Finally, the C++ designers take safety seriously, now that there's a competitive threat. Until a decade ago, they didn't. I used to argue with some of the committee members over that. The trouble is, C++ does safety by using templates to paper over the underlying C memory model. This never quite works. The mold always seeps through the wallpaper. Raw pointers are needed for too many APIs.

Jensson 5y ago

Languages don't get popular unless they are very easy to learn, so no language popular today almost surely is biased in favor of learning curve and against complexity. We probably need some big industrywide intervention to create the optimal level of complexity in languages as I doubt even C++ is too complex to be optimal if you consider that you work 40 years in a career. It would work by just having a couple of standard languages so developers don't need to learn so many languages, then they spend a lot of time learning those until they are fluent and then they don't have to learn anything new about programming languages for the rest of their lives, very efficient.

TheMonarchist 5y ago
> It would work by just having a couple of standard languages so developers don't need to learn so many languages, then they spend a lot of time learning those until they are fluent and then they don't have to learn anything new about programming languages for the rest of their lives, very efficient. Programming methodology continues to evolve and languages need to address it to stay relevant.

MathMonkeyMan 5y ago

Yes, as the creator of C++ has said [1] before. Personally, I'd also distinguish between "complicated over time" and "complicated by default." For example, Clojure has a minimal syntax and instead uses a large vocabulary of terse primitive procedures. If you don't know the primitives, it's "complicated." A different example is Rust, which has many features expressed in syntax. If you haven't learned all of the syntax, it's "complicated." Compare these with C++, which began as a small set of extensions to a stronger-typed C, but has gradually grown into a family of sub-languages, each added for a particular purpose, and all interacting with each other (sometimes beautifully, other times horribly -- knowing the difference is "complicated"). [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-problem-with-c/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-problem-with-c/

BigJono 5y ago

I don't think so, if you assume that learning is a linear thing and at the end of it you improve as a dev. But the problem is that learning isn't one curve, it's a bunch of them and most of them lead to dead ends or even turn backwards after a while. If you bloat out a language, what happens is that some subset of devs (like, maybe 10%) write really great code and have all the tools they'll ever need to do so. And the other 90% learn a chaotic mix of good and bad practices from each other, without the ability to properly distinguish them, and eventually reach some local maxima amongst themselves of overcomplicated "average" code that's shittier than I imagine it would be if they just kept the language simple.

lmm 5y ago

I certainly doubt any extant language actually does it, and also fundamentally there may just not be so much that's worth building into a general-purpose language. The most extreme examples I can think of are something like Haskell (which takes, what, a weekend to be able to write code in?) or maybe APL (which takes, what, maybe two months?). A language that was truly expert-oriented might take as long to learn as human languages do, or longer - certainly, for something you use your whole career, that much up-front effort would be worthwhile. But are there even enough distinct general-purpose constructs to fill that much time?

iopq 5y ago
Try learning Rust, then you reach this point https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39558633/higher-rank-lifetimes-and-generics-not-playing-nicely https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39558633/higher-rank-lif... I still don't understand what higher rank lifetime bound means and this affects whether I can write code that actually compiles
- lmm 5y ago
  When I was writing my comment I thought about Scala, where I was certainly learning useful new techniques 7 years into using the language, but that wasn't really about learning new parts of the language. I think Rust has picked an overly specific way to represent lifetimes, that makes them more of a special case than they should be. But maybe that distinction doesn't actually matter. (Higher rank lifetime bounds are like higher rank types, it might be easier to understand those first and then understand Rust's weird special case version of them afterwards)
  - pornel 5y ago
    Rust is in this weird place, because it needs to be palatable to C/C++ programmers. C has pointers and a vague notion of their lifetimes, but barely any type system to speak of. That's the lens through which Rust needs to present the problem.

yxhuvud 5y ago

Yes, if nothing else because the problems that are solved shifts over time, as do preferred solutions. So if it is too optimized, there is a risk of churn.

gcanyon 5y ago

There are certainly languages that test whether this is possible. J comes to mind: https://www.jsoftware.com/#/README https://www.jsoftware.com/#/README Here's something like the tenth or fifteenth chunk of code I wrote in J. It solves a programming puzzle. I doubt people who have mastered J would call it well-written, but it solves the problem. list=:_9]\33 30 10 _6 18 _7 _11 23 _6 16 _19 9 _26 _8 _19 _8 _21 _14 17 12 _14 31 _30 13 _13 19 16 _6 _11 1 17 _12 _4 _7 14 _21 18 _31 34 _22 17 _19 20 24 6 33 _18 17 _15 31 _5 3 27 _3 _18 _20 _18 31 6 4 _2 _12 24 27 14 4 _29 _3 5 _29 8 _12 _15 _7 _23 23 _9 _8 6 8 _12 33 _23 _19 _4 _8 _7 11 _12 31 _20 19 _15 _30 11 32 7 14 _5 _23 18 _32 _2 _31 _7 8 24 16 32 _4 _10 _14 _6 _1 0 23 23 25 0 _23 22 12 28 _27 15 4 _30 _13 _16 _3 _3 _32 _3 27 _31 22 1 26 4 _2 _13 26 17 14 _9 _18 3 _20 _27 _32 _11 27 13 _17 33 _7 19 _32 13 _31 _2 _24 _31 27 _31 _29 15 2 29 _15 33 _18 _23 15 28 0 30 _4 12 _32 _3 34 27 _25 _18 26 1 34 26 _21 _31 _10 _13 _30 _17 _12 _26 31 23 _31 _19 21 _17 _10 2 _23 23 _3 6 0 _3 _32 0 _10 _25 14 _19 9 14 _27 20 15 _5 _27 18 11 _6 24 7 _17 26 20 _31 _25 _25 4 _16 30 33 23 _4 _4 23 sumOfRows =: ([: +/"1 [: |: ] \* [: |: _1 + 2 \* [: #: [: i. 2 ^ #)"1 list rowSigns =: (;/@:,/@:>)"2 {|:(_1;_1 1;1) {~ (_1&<+0&<) sumOfRows candidates =:,/((_4]\4#"3 (_1 + 2 \* #:i.2^9) (\* &. |:)" 1 _ list) \* (>rowSigns)) theAnswers =: (] #~ [: (0&<@:+/@:(0&<) \* \*/@:(_1&<)) [: |: +/"2) candidates theSums =: +/"1 +/"1 theAnswers theBestAnswer =: ~. ((theSums = ] theBestSum =: <./ theSums) # theAnswers) In case anyone wants an explanation: https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/a-solution-to-einavs-programming-puzzle/ https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/a-solution-to-einav...

62951413 5y ago

Haskell comes to mind. In all seriousness, not really. Learning curve doesn't matter for a language that we'll pay your bills for the next twenty years. And once you fully internalize a JVM/.NET-level platform or Scala/C++-level language a lot of that will be reusable in learning others.