3 ms·
There's a larger point in this post about using frameworks with the language they were designed for. Using another language to wrap a language you don't like to
by hkarthik 15y ago
There's a larger point in this post about using frameworks with the language they were designed for. Using another language to wrap a language you don't like to use a framework is often extremely limiting and awkward.
As a developer trying to get things done, I'm far more productive if I bite the bullet and learn the language the framework was designed for rather than bend the framework to fit my favorite language. I've found this to be true across mobile, web and pure backend server technologies.
- slowernet 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_abstraction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_abstraction
- themgt 15y agoWhat is the language that you write in that doesn't "wrap another language"? I always find it amazing that it's possible to get programmers to argue against not just some specific abstraction, but abstraction as a general principle. What do you think programming is exactly, if not layers and layers of abstractions? [edit: that's not to say I think the MobiRuby syntax is looking very good at the moment, but don't toss the baby with the bathwater]
- hkarthik 15y agoIt's not the wrapping of the language that is the issue. Unless you're writing bytecode by hand, every programer deals with some abstraction. The issue is wrapping a language with a higher level abstraction, but then proceeding to use your abstraction with a framework designed for the lower language. In the case of the post, the author mentions using MacRuby/mRuby to Objective-C, but then proceeding to use it with Cocoa, which is really designed specifically for Objective-C. Using it with Ruby just ends up being awkward and unwieldy.