3 ms·
While you're of course correct, there's just something that feels off. I'd love if we kept niche, focused-purpose languages once in a while, instead of having e
by jvanderbot 1y ago
While you're of course correct, there's just something that feels off. I'd love if we kept niche, focused-purpose languages once in a while, instead of having every language do everything. If you prioritize everything you prioritize nothing.
- GolDDranks 1y agoI agree specifically with regards to GC; I think that focusing on being an excellent language for low-level programming (linkable language-agnostic libraries, embedded systems, performance-sensitive systems, high-assurance systems etc.) should continue being the focus. However, this is 3rd party research. Let all flowers bloom!
- sebastianconcpt 1y ago> If you prioritize everything you prioritize nothing Well... If you prioritize everything you prioritize generalism. (the "nothing" part comes from our natural limitation to pay enough multidisciplinary attention to details but that psychological impression is being nuked with AI as we speak and the efforts to get to AGI are an attempt to make synthetic "intelligence" be able to gain dominion over this spirit before us)
- virgilp 1y agoNo, they are quite identical. Both cases logically lead to "now everything has the same priority". There's nothing about generalism in there.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoJust like when hiring developers, there's an advantage in choosing "jack of all trades, master of some".