3 ms·
How does a short learning curve necessarily correlate to a "nearly empty" toolbox? That seems like a fallacy to me. Ruby is fairly easy to learn. Does that mea
by lerno 5y ago
How does a short learning curve necessarily correlate to a "nearly empty" toolbox? That seems like a fallacy to me.
Ruby is fairly easy to learn. Does that mean it has a nearly empty toolbox? No it doesn't.
A language with a GC is easier to learn than one without a GC. Does the one with a GC have less in the toolbox? What if it also allows opting out of GC?
ObjC is considered a hard language to learn, esp for people used to C++ and Java. Does this come from it having more tools in the toolbox?
"A language with a short learning curve is like a toolbox that’s nearly empty" is a nice quote, but it also objectively seems to be wrong.
- yxhuvud 5y ago> Ruby is fairly easy to learn No, its not. Ruby as a language is about as complex as they come. It is easy to get to a productive state though, but that is not the same thing as having learned the language. Length of learning curve and accessibility are vastly different things.
- lerno 5y agoGetting productive easily is the pretty much the definition of not having a steep learning curve. So I have difficulties making sense of your argument.
- foxfluff 5y agoyxhuvud referred to length of the learning curve, not slope of the learning curve. Even if getting started is easy (no steep slope), mastery can take long.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoPython is the same. It's easy to write simple code, but once you get deep enough, the skeletons come out of closet.