4 ms·
I think 3 is not only a natural state, but the best state. I don’t think we can have 1 language that satisfies the needs of all people who write code, and thus
by dartos 2y ago
I think 3 is not only a natural state, but the best state.
I don’t think we can have 1 language that satisfies the needs of all people who write code, and thus, we can’t have 1 syntax that does that either.
3 seems the only sensible solution to me, and we have it.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI dunno, here in 3 the hardest part of learning a language has little to do with the language itself and more to do with the ecosystem of tooling around that language. I think we could more easily get on to the business of using the right language for the job if more of that tooling was shared. If each language, for instance did not have it's own package manager, its own IDE, its own linters and language servers all with their own idiosyncrasies arising not from deep philosophical differences of the associated language but instead from accidental quirks of perspective from whoever decided that their favorite language needed a new widget. I admire the widget makers, especially those wrangling the gaps between languages. I just wish their work could be made easier.
- skydhash 2y agoI really like the Linux package managers. If you're going to write an application that will run on some system, it's better to bake dependencies into it. And with virtualization and containerization, the system is not tied to a physical machine. I've been using containers (incus) more and more for real development purposes as I can use almost the same environment to deploy. I don't care much about the IDE, but I'm glad we have LSP, Tree-sitter, and DAP. The one thing I do not like is the proliferation of tooling version manager (NVM,..) instead of managing the environment itself (tied to the project).