3 ms·
Yes. You either have a language that is easy or you have tooling to make it easy. If I cannot access documentation for a library/function at a mere tap of a bu
by JAlexoid 4y ago
Yes. You either have a language that is easy or you have tooling to make it easy.
If I cannot access documentation for a library/function at a mere tap of a button - that language isn't going into my toolbelt. I have to code in like 5 languages at my dayjob, that's at least 3 different types of semantics for ==.
Java, and Kotlin, are great at that. It's the major pitfall for Scala(and a laundry list of others), on the other side(hey implicits and converters, that make even IntelliJ go "wut?"). Those long names in Java are actually a godsend. Give me "int indexInTheArray" over "int x" anyday. Explicitness of Python is also a pleasant thing to work with.
People forget that most software is boring website backends, business processes and similar tools. Most devs don't have mental capacity to devote to "the one and only" language+platform+ISA.
- vendiddy 4y agoAre there languages out there that have done both?
- vips7L 4y agoThis has been my experience with Scala. Even IntelliJ can’t figure it out sometimes and the documentation is all crazy type theory stuff.
- taeric 4y agoThis sort of flies in the face of how many people reject lisp systems, though. I could almost see that python is doing this, but the number of python users I have met that don't know how to use "help()" is... impressive.
- LinXitoW 4y agoIt's not just the tooling. Having tried to work with Python in Intellij, the lack of typing means you literally have to GUESS what any non-primitive object can do. It might also be an unhappy coincidence, but the library I was playing around with (scrapy) also had HORRENDOUSLY documented code. With Java/Kotlin, you can just click into any method/class and you'll get a useful doc string 99% of the time. With Python, I had to read the (incomplete) documentation.