3 ms·
These arguments could use a little more precision/evidence and some concrete examples. >1. Array languages aren't well suited to every problem. No language is
by WhitneyLand 3y ago
These arguments could use a little more precision/evidence and some concrete examples.
>1. Array languages aren't well suited to every problem.
No language is suited to every problem?
>2. They are ridiculously capable for many types of problem.
Irrelevant? It only matters if it is more capable than other languages.
>3. The people using array languages are generally insanely smart.
Folklore. Impossible to quantify. Most of all, there are really smart people using all languages.
>4. Learning how array languages work is a steep challenge.
This is not persuasive.
>5. It’s awesomely mind expanding.
Like philosophy and psychedelics? People care about GTD.
Seriously, I’m listening. What’s the real competitive, objective, case for k?
- stealthcat 3y agoHow do you trust numbers to “quantify extremely smart people”? Interviewers know to hire/no-hire within first 10 minutes of talking to candidates. Similarly, the best LLMs nowadays are probed only with some prompts. Just last time I see LLM midwit meme on quantifying best scores on all benchmarks vs idiots/geniuses who just prompt something for some while. Do not try to put numbers on everything.
- WhitneyLand 3y agoI’m not sure we’re disagreeing… I said it was impossible to quantify, not that it should be quantified. In general I just don’t think it’s a reason to decide on a programming language.
- gcanyon 3y agoI didn't say it was a reason to "decide" on a programming language. I started with a premise and then said "here's my take" but nowhere did I say "this is my take on why you should use K/J/APL for real work." It's just a list of bullet points about why J (in my case) is interesting.