4 ms·
I have a big gripe with rust and other modern languages like zig, and it’s difficult to reconcile it. The gripe is that after using them for a while, anything
by PartiallyTyped 3y ago
I have a big gripe with rust and other modern languages like zig, and it’s difficult to reconcile it.
The gripe is that after using them for a while, anything else like java, python, c++ or C is underwhelming, boring and tedious, an exercise in how long you can uphold standards until you fall back to language defaults.
- pjmlp 3y agoWhat these languages show, is something anyone used to compiled BASIC, Pascal dialects like Object Pascal, Modula-2 and such, already knew back in the day. We had languages that were a pleasure to use for high level programming abstractions, while at the same time, provided the necessary features to go all the way down, even inline Assembly if it must be. Without the culture that tooling much be hard, rather developers are users as well. Thankfully a new generation of developers is bringing this culture back.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago> Without the culture that tooling much be hard, rather developers are users as well. I don't follow this. Could you elaborate? I think the current culture is that tooling must be smart, accessible, and very well written, e.g rust (cargo, rustc, clippy, rust-analyzer), go coming with everything, same for gleam. Even zig is a better build system for C programs than most buildsystems for C.
- pjmlp 3y agoI am talking about the C tooling culture, specially when comparing how compilers, linkers and makefiles are exposed, versus the Xerox PARC programming model that was largely adopted by other ecosystems. Think TP, Delphi, VB, .NET, Smalltalk, Common Lisp, Clipper, Eiffel, MacOS AppToolbox, Java,...