4 ms·
You would think by this point all languages would have standardized on a basic library. I mean, if you're not starting off with what Python (or even Mono for th
by Cacti 14y ago
You would think by this point all languages would have standardized on a basic library. I mean, if you're not starting off with what Python (or even Mono for that matter) already has, then you're just making things needlessly complicated for yourself.
Everyone goes crazy over syntax and idioms and OMG GROUNDBREAKING NEW IDEAS (not) when really 85% of a language depends on the library and toolchain.
- grey-area 14y agoThe differences between standard libraries, programming idioms, communities and ethos often play a large role in defining a new language, so surely sharing a standard library would in many ways defeat the point of trying something new? A programming language is not just a spec and a syntax, it's also a way of seeing the world - "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.", so to get a new way of looking at things, you also need to reinvent the basics to some extent, and rethink how (for example) basics like errors, threads or strings are handled. Personally, I think it's useful to have a multipolar programming landscape, even if it sometimes leads to duplicated work, because it can give you a fresh perspective on old problems.