3 ms·
I think at the end we're debating if the glass is half full or half empty. I claim that people are not ignorant and if they use C/C++, they are aware of what a
by Galanwe 3y ago
I think at the end we're debating if the glass is half full or half empty.
I claim that people are not ignorant and if they use C/C++, they are aware of what a GC implies, and cannot afford it.
The article claims that people are somehow wrongly mislead to think they _need_ C/C++ while a GC'ed language would be alright.
I don't think people are dumb. I think given the choice, any sane person would pick Python or similar to write an application, and that thinking they don't because they don't know more is pedantic.
- naasking 3y agoIt's a mistake to conclude that people make rational choices based on the premise that they aren't dumb. Counterexamples abound. It's literally true that people who have never programmed in a language with GC don't know what it's like, but they absorb folklore about it's difficulties or unsuitability from places like HN. Except such content is almost always from extremes that aren't applicable to most development, thus producing an unintentionally skewed picture. Articles exactly like this one are needed for balance, and to encourage more experimentation with safer choices.