4 ms·

While true, I feel the pace of evolution is too fast at the moment. I am involved in scientific programming, and it's getting kind of crazy. This is a domain w

While true, I feel the pace of evolution is too fast at the moment. I am involved in scientific programming, and it's getting kind of crazy. This is a domain where programming is purely utilitarian, and what you are programming is more important. Unfortunately, new languages are driven by people who love programming for the sake of programming, and are often employed in big corporations that can absorb the financial cost of ecosystem duplication and fragmentation. The time scientists spend on 'infrastructure' is increasing, and I'm not sure that's always a good thing. (Some is good, of course).

carlmr 4y ago
>I am involved in scientific programming, and it's getting kind of crazy. This is a domain where programming is purely utilitarian, and what you are programming is more important. In my experience this leads to a lot of bad programming by people who only care about the utilitarian aspect, not about maintainability, user experience or failure modes. Scientific programming would benefit the most from a stricter language that catches errors early on. Especially because most of the participants are usually not software engineers that have some semblance of a chance to catch errors in C++. Even they make a lot of mistakes.