4 ms·
> We have no theoretical method for determining which design philosophy is better than the other. We do have a theoretical method. It's the scientific method.
by Supermancho 4y ago
> We have no theoretical method for determining which design philosophy is better than the other.
We do have a theoretical method. It's the scientific method. Other than that, I'm largely of the same thinking. Also, confusing language implementation with overall design is a major source of confusion (eg Java vs OOP vs Erlang vs FP vs Haskell, etc)
How to measure "better" and how the data is interpreted, are the major stopping points to improving software language usability. There have been some attempts (re: Quorum). Classic OOP (inheritance, et al) is simpler to use than mixins for many projects. So now we have to worry about project size as another axis. Then we have to address the issue of median developer effort. What about memory? How do you weigh FP allocate-stack-as-a-for-loop vs reduced mutability? It's more complex than FP good OOP bad.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
- Supermancho 4y ago
- dang 4y agoBreaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned on HN. We've already had to ask you once not to do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23334274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23334274. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
- dang 4y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments - not just in this thread but in many threads - and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33662814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33662814