3 ms·

And I see people who assume choosing a language was done for "flashy stuff" the less capable. See, we can all generalize. Not productive. Only thing I ever sa

And I see people who assume choosing a language was done for "flashy stuff" the less capable. See, we can all generalize. Not productive. Only thing I ever saw from Golang devs was pragmatism. I myself go either for Elixir or Rust and to me Golang sits in a weird middle but I've also written 20+ small tools for myself in Golang and have seen how much quicker and more productive I was when I was not obsessed with complete correctness (throwaway script-like programs, small-to-mid[ish]-sized projects, internal tools etc.) You would do well to stop stereotyping people based on their choice of language.

zozbot234 2y ago
> how much quicker and more productive I was when I was not obsessed with complete correctness That's pretty much another way of saying that stuff becomes a whole lot quicker and easier when you end up getting things wrong. Which may even be true, as far as it goes. It's just not very helpful.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  Obviously. But I did qualify my statement. There are projects where you're OK with not getting everything right from the get go. FWIW I very much share your exact thoughts on Rust skewing metrics because it makes things too easy and because stuff almost immediately moves to maintenance mode. But that being said, we still have some tasks where we need something yesterday and we can't argue with the shot-callers about it. (And again, some personal projects where the value is low and you derive more of it if you try quickly.)
darkhorse222 2y ago
I am a builder trained as a computer engineer. I scoff at languages as abstractions over fundamentals that do not change. This isn't like a hammer and a screwdriver, it's like fifteen different hammers. Just give me the thing, I'll build the house. A guy spends three hours talking about the hammer, he's probably not focused on building the house. Tool preferences show ego of the builder.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  > Just give me the thing, I'll build the house. What do you think all programming discussions about languages, typing systems, runtime, tooling etc. aim for? EXACTLY THAT. If it was as easy as "just give me thing" then programming would have been a solved and 100% automated problem long time ago. Your comment comes across as "if only we could fly, we would have no ground road traffic jams". I mean, obviously, yeah, but we can't fly. Your comment also comes across a bit elitistic and from the POV of an ivory tower. Don't know if that was your goal, if not, I'd advise you to state things a bit more humbly.
  - darkhorse222 2y ago
    I'm not seeking your advice. When I look at a cathedral built out of sand and call it meaningless that is not elitist, that is humble. Engineers who think their tools make all the difference are the pretentious ones. Things are not that complicated.
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      Too much generalization. Not interesting and not a discussion. No idea why you even bothered to reply. I stated an opinion. You can reject it silently. Having the last word is not such a badass move as many people think. :)

zozbot234 2y ago

> how much quicker and more productive I was when I was not obsessed with complete correctness That's pretty much another way of saying that stuff becomes a whole lot quicker and easier when you end up getting things wrong. Which may even be true, as far as it goes. It's just not very helpful.

pdimitar 2y ago
Obviously. But I did qualify my statement. There are projects where you're OK with not getting everything right from the get go. FWIW I very much share your exact thoughts on Rust skewing metrics because it makes things too easy and because stuff almost immediately moves to maintenance mode. But that being said, we still have some tasks where we need something yesterday and we can't argue with the shot-callers about it. (And again, some personal projects where the value is low and you derive more of it if you try quickly.)

darkhorse222 2y ago

I am a builder trained as a computer engineer. I scoff at languages as abstractions over fundamentals that do not change. This isn't like a hammer and a screwdriver, it's like fifteen different hammers. Just give me the thing, I'll build the house. A guy spends three hours talking about the hammer, he's probably not focused on building the house. Tool preferences show ego of the builder.

pdimitar 2y ago
> Just give me the thing, I'll build the house. What do you think all programming discussions about languages, typing systems, runtime, tooling etc. aim for? EXACTLY THAT. If it was as easy as "just give me thing" then programming would have been a solved and 100% automated problem long time ago. Your comment comes across as "if only we could fly, we would have no ground road traffic jams". I mean, obviously, yeah, but we can't fly. Your comment also comes across a bit elitistic and from the POV of an ivory tower. Don't know if that was your goal, if not, I'd advise you to state things a bit more humbly.
- darkhorse222 2y ago
  I'm not seeking your advice. When I look at a cathedral built out of sand and call it meaningless that is not elitist, that is humble. Engineers who think their tools make all the difference are the pretentious ones. Things are not that complicated.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    Too much generalization. Not interesting and not a discussion. No idea why you even bothered to reply. I stated an opinion. You can reject it silently. Having the last word is not such a badass move as many people think. :)