6 ms·

He just explained it with the semicolon in Python example. The moment when language designer starts making compromise with the language just because it would be

He just explained it with the semicolon in Python example. The moment when language designer starts making compromise with the language just because it would be easier to implement an _official_ editor or IDE is the moment that language is effectively stopping to advance. The history has shown that languages developed without concerns of IDE were the most successful or the most influential languages.

disgruntledphd2 14y ago
That's an interesting contention. Any chance you could share some examples? I don't doubt you, but I do wonder at your benchmarks for success and influence. FWIW, I use Emacs, which is an editor with a programming language embedded. So does that make me a language maven (as I like emacs lisp and playing with it) or a tool maven, because I am learning about the tool I use to edit code (and almost everything else textual)?
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Whoa. That is a crazy assertion. First, not many languages have been designed with the IDE as a concern, and second, all the industrial PL design teams that I know of definitely work closely with their IDE team to ensure harmony between tooling and language. I'm a bit more radical, all of my recent languages have been heavily tied to the IDE, to the point that there is know real boundary between the implementation of the compiler and IDE.
- markokocic 14y ago
  Working closely with the IDE team is a good thing, but core language developers focusing on the IDE and the language in the same time can indeed lead to some compromises that hurt the language.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Working on both might require trade offs in the language that lead to a better holistic programmer experience. That sounds reasonable to me.
abhimishra 14y ago
I don't agree that it stops the language from advancing. What is your definition of advancement here, exactly? Lots of successful, productive languages pay attention to tooling as well. I see it as just weighing the costs and benefits of various trade-offs.

disgruntledphd2 14y ago

That's an interesting contention. Any chance you could share some examples? I don't doubt you, but I do wonder at your benchmarks for success and influence. FWIW, I use Emacs, which is an editor with a programming language embedded. So does that make me a language maven (as I like emacs lisp and playing with it) or a tool maven, because I am learning about the tool I use to edit code (and almost everything else textual)?

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

Whoa. That is a crazy assertion. First, not many languages have been designed with the IDE as a concern, and second, all the industrial PL design teams that I know of definitely work closely with their IDE team to ensure harmony between tooling and language. I'm a bit more radical, all of my recent languages have been heavily tied to the IDE, to the point that there is know real boundary between the implementation of the compiler and IDE.

markokocic 14y ago
Working closely with the IDE team is a good thing, but core language developers focusing on the IDE and the language in the same time can indeed lead to some compromises that hurt the language.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Working on both might require trade offs in the language that lead to a better holistic programmer experience. That sounds reasonable to me.

abhimishra 14y ago

I don't agree that it stops the language from advancing. What is your definition of advancement here, exactly? Lots of successful, productive languages pay attention to tooling as well. I see it as just weighing the costs and benefits of various trade-offs.