4 ms·

As someone who strongly dislikes complicated languages, it's obvious to me that it's a matter of personal preference; personal aesthetics, if you like. If the c

by pron 5y ago

As someone who strongly dislikes complicated languages, it's obvious to me that it's a matter of personal preference; personal aesthetics, if you like. If the choice is between complexity in the language and elsewhere, often I'd rather it be elsewhere. But while that preference is entirely subjective, what isn't subjective is the distribution of that preference among programmers. I think that we can say with as much certainty as we can about these things that the answer is clear: the vast majority of programmers prefer simpler languages. So much so that while language simplicity is by no means a sufficient condition for high popularity, it seems that it's a necessary one. But I'll go further. My gut feeling, which is by no means even remotely scientific, is that those who prefer simpler languages outnumber those who prefer complicated ones 9:1. Moreover, my feeling is that the ratio is higher at the low end of programmer capability than at the higher end — and it makes sense, as more capable programmers can handle more complexity, so some — still a minority, but a larger one —prefer moving more of it to the language.

christophilus 5y ago
I don’t know. It seems to me the progression is “I like simple languages.” To “I like how expressive I can be. Look at this elegant one line program I wrote.” To “I like simple languages.” Anecdotally, as I’ve gained experience, I and most people I know have only grown in valuing simplicity. It’s one reason the the average Clojure developer is older.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kaba0 5y ago
I’ve seen many of your comments (sorry, I’m not stalking you, just find both your work on Loom and your fresh take on some CS problems really interesting) regarding languages and would like to know how would your ideal language look like? I know that you are quite fond of Zig’s simplicity, especially the way they replaced many complex features of c++, rust by a simple constexpr feature. I would wager you also think of Java as a simple language, and I remember seeing Clojure as a positive example somewhere as well. You also seem to suggest that a “high level low level” language is not really possible (the trap c++ and rust falls into) due to low level details always seeping through, making refactors much slower. So my question is: how would the ideal low and high level language look like in your opinion? Regarding the high level languages, do you find java’s Valhalla plans good? I personally really like the semantic-only distinction of basically loss-of-identity, and loss-of-tearing, giving ample grounds for optimizations behind the scenes, and over time (in part thanks to some of your comments), I grown to really like the simplicity a language with simple classes and methods can bring.
- pron 5y ago
  > how would the ideal low and high level language look like in your opinion? I really don't know. I didn't know about the utility of affine types for memory safety in a low-level language before Rust, and I didn't know how much could be done with just comptime before Zig, so I certainly can't say what would be ideal for me. In terms of values, I would like a very simple language that helps write correct code and has fast compilation. None of the low-level languages I know about fully meet those goals, but so far Zig comes closest. Then again, it's easy to look good before you're actually out there, so we'll see. > Regarding the high level languages, do you find java’s Valhalla plans good? TBH, I haven't been following Valhalla closely, but knowing the people involved, I have the utmost confidence in what they'll do.
littlestymaar 5y ago
Funny to see this > As someone who strongly dislikes complicated languages while > Working on OpenJDK at Oracle as if Java was uncomplicated…
- pron 5y ago
  Everything is relative. Java is more complicated than Clojure and Python, but it's less complicated than C#, Scala, and Kotlin, and no more complicated than Swift.

by pron 5y ago

christophilus 5y ago

I don’t know. It seems to me the progression is “I like simple languages.” To “I like how expressive I can be. Look at this elegant one line program I wrote.” To “I like simple languages.” Anecdotally, as I’ve gained experience, I and most people I know have only grown in valuing simplicity. It’s one reason the the average Clojure developer is older.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kaba0 5y ago

I’ve seen many of your comments (sorry, I’m not stalking you, just find both your work on Loom and your fresh take on some CS problems really interesting) regarding languages and would like to know how would your ideal language look like? I know that you are quite fond of Zig’s simplicity, especially the way they replaced many complex features of c++, rust by a simple constexpr feature. I would wager you also think of Java as a simple language, and I remember seeing Clojure as a positive example somewhere as well. You also seem to suggest that a “high level low level” language is not really possible (the trap c++ and rust falls into) due to low level details always seeping through, making refactors much slower. So my question is: how would the ideal low and high level language look like in your opinion? Regarding the high level languages, do you find java’s Valhalla plans good? I personally really like the semantic-only distinction of basically loss-of-identity, and loss-of-tearing, giving ample grounds for optimizations behind the scenes, and over time (in part thanks to some of your comments), I grown to really like the simplicity a language with simple classes and methods can bring.

pron 5y ago
> how would the ideal low and high level language look like in your opinion? I really don't know. I didn't know about the utility of affine types for memory safety in a low-level language before Rust, and I didn't know how much could be done with just comptime before Zig, so I certainly can't say what would be ideal for me. In terms of values, I would like a very simple language that helps write correct code and has fast compilation. None of the low-level languages I know about fully meet those goals, but so far Zig comes closest. Then again, it's easy to look good before you're actually out there, so we'll see. > Regarding the high level languages, do you find java’s Valhalla plans good? TBH, I haven't been following Valhalla closely, but knowing the people involved, I have the utmost confidence in what they'll do.

littlestymaar 5y ago

Funny to see this > As someone who strongly dislikes complicated languages while > Working on OpenJDK at Oracle as if Java was uncomplicated…

pron 5y ago
Everything is relative. Java is more complicated than Clojure and Python, but it's less complicated than C#, Scala, and Kotlin, and no more complicated than Swift.