3 ms·

Many compiler devs want the most complex language as possible, because it increase exponentialy developer/vendor lock-in.

3836293648 4y ago
That is misattributed malice. Firstly language devs are some of the most pro tiny languages people out there, it's the users that ask for the kitchen sink (though not the same kitchen sink as their neighbour) Secondly people doing something because they like it want to continue working on said thing?! What a surprise. This is not malice
- sylware 4y ago
  I do attribute that to malice by default, until proven otherwise. This is my opinion, pleasant or not, this is not on a whim.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
Can you name one language that this is true for? Also, this looks like a clear violation of Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Not that I'm calling compiler devs stupid, but like languages (and systems overall) do tend towards increased complexity over time. This is the default trend no matter the subject. It takes clear, agreed-upon goals and hard work to keep that from happening.
- sylware 4y ago
  As I said this is not on a whim. llvm/gcc devs do not realise that there is an issue with those compilers reaching a complexity and size fairly qualified as absurd and grotesque. Since it has been roughly 2 decades, I am finished to believe those devs are merely blinded by an accute lack of experience, that's why for me those devs are actually malicious for developer/vendor lock-in, that on top of the other big issue which is planned obsolescence (mostly syntax and compiler extensions). This is so accute that the other alternative, since I now exclude any accute lack of experience, would be to start questioning their sanity, and I think we are dealing with evil, not medical pathology. I am very serious about this.

3 ms·

Many compiler devs want the most complex language as possible, because it increase exponentialy developer/vendor lock-in.

by sylware 4y ago

3836293648 4y ago
That is misattributed malice. Firstly language devs are some of the most pro tiny languages people out there, it's the users that ask for the kitchen sink (though not the same kitchen sink as their neighbour) Secondly people doing something because they like it want to continue working on said thing?! What a surprise. This is not malice
- sylware 4y ago
  I do attribute that to malice by default, until proven otherwise. This is my opinion, pleasant or not, this is not on a whim.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
Can you name one language that this is true for? Also, this looks like a clear violation of Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Not that I'm calling compiler devs stupid, but like languages (and systems overall) do tend towards increased complexity over time. This is the default trend no matter the subject. It takes clear, agreed-upon goals and hard work to keep that from happening.
- sylware 4y ago
  As I said this is not on a whim. llvm/gcc devs do not realise that there is an issue with those compilers reaching a complexity and size fairly qualified as absurd and grotesque. Since it has been roughly 2 decades, I am finished to believe those devs are merely blinded by an accute lack of experience, that's why for me those devs are actually malicious for developer/vendor lock-in, that on top of the other big issue which is planned obsolescence (mostly syntax and compiler extensions). This is so accute that the other alternative, since I now exclude any accute lack of experience, would be to start questioning their sanity, and I think we are dealing with evil, not medical pathology. I am very serious about this.