3 ms·
This is going too far in the other direction. There are absolutely people who have mastered e.g. Java, CPP or whatever with language-specific knowledge. Being a
by bidirectional 4y ago
This is going too far in the other direction. There are absolutely people who have mastered e.g. Java, CPP or whatever with language-specific knowledge. Being an expert on JVM internals won't boil through to Haskell.
- Aperocky 4y agoJVM is essentially project knowledge, if you're writing code that requires you to understand JVM internals really well, unless you're working on JVM directly, something is wrong within the division of labor. Programming with java requires no internal JVM knowledge bare the bare minimal surface ones (execution args, etc).
- bidirectional 4y agoWhy? If you're working on a performance critical application, you need that knowledge. Plenty of HFT firms use Java.
- markdestouches 4y agoWhat's the reasoning behind picking Java for a performance critical application over something like C or C++?
- tester756 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12051639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12051639
- BossingAround 4y agoWe do have CLR, BEAM, HaLVM, and LLVM. Understanding the JVM translates to understanding similar architectures.
- nightpool 4y agoWell, being a master of JVM internals does give you a very strong grasp on a very useful basket of concepts for GC and programming language implementations, so I'm not sure I would necessarily agree that there's no transferable overlap. But regardless, neither of these are applicable metaphors for a 101 level CS class—at the introductory level, you're better getting a broader survey of lots of different languages, because learning the transferable fundamentals is more important than learning the specific "trivia" of any particular language.