3 ms·
I tried to read this with an open mind but the premise of the article is so reductive I gave up quickly. There’s a whole plethora of reasons a language might f
by hnlmorg 2mo ago
I tried to read this with an open mind but the premise of the article is so reductive I gave up quickly.
There’s a whole plethora of reasons a language might fall in or out of favour. From ecosystem lock in (eg Objective-C was mandatory for Apple development prior to swift and Visual Basic was ostensibly killed by Microsoft during the dot net upsell) to fragmentation in the community (eg Perl vs Raku). These don’t mean the languages aren’t “fun” nor productive.
Likewise, “fun” is such a subjective term that it’s utterly meaningless using it as any kind of yardstick. Esoteric languages are arguably the most “fun” but you don’t see companies running critical infrastructure on Brainfuck, Rockstar, nor lolcode.
And to say Pascal, Perl and Objective-C were false starts only demonstrates the author hasn’t used any computers prior to 2010. Perl was the de facto sysadmin language for literally decades. Pascal was the microcomputer language of choice before C++ took over (even to the extent that some 80s OSs are Pascal projects), Objective-C only disappeared because Apple introduced Swift. And the authors comment about COBOL being retired is untrue for anyone who’s worked on critical banking software.
I honestly think AI slop would have more value than this naive opinion piece.
- forinti 2mo agoPerl is still in every Linux. I just checked one of my Oracle installs and there are 725 .pl files. So it seems that is it still relevant.
- jottinger 2mo agoI was programming computers in 1981. Pascal and COMAL were among my first structured languages. Your comment on the "naive opinion piece" is taken as it is offered, and I'm happy to offer you a full refund on your purchase price of the essay. :D
- jottinger 2mo agoAlso, since I tend to loop back: yes, "fun" is subjective, and your points about Objective C and Pascal were actually mentioned directly in the footnotes, including the "false start" nomenclature, which came from Oram, not me, and I mentioned COBOL's specific remaining survival directly as well. Comments are always appreciated, of course, but they're best when they actually address the article they're commenting on instead of inferences. I get that the article's not short - I don't enjoy 300 word things that lack nuance - but even so.
- hnlmorg 2mo agoMaybe you shouldn’t open with such provocative statements if you are already aware they’re not fair? Posting flamebate and expecting people to read until the footnotes isn’t going to get you favourable feedback.
- jottinger 2mo agoIt's not flamebait - or "flamebate" - and I don't write "for favorable feedback." Did you not read the article? The author - me - actually means every word of it, including the bits about vocation and joy. Life is not single-dimensional, and neither is knowledge.
- hnlmorg 2mo ago> yes, "fun" is subjective, and your points about Objective C and Pascal were actually mentioned directly in the footnotes, including the "false start" nomenclature I didn’t get as far as the footnotes because the article glossed over so much nuance at the start that it felt like I was reading something from a 20-something fresh out of college. And by your own admission, you have to read to the footnotes to get to the nuance. Maybe it does get better towards the end, but then that’s a failure of the writing if you have to read the first 90% before you finally get to anything insightful. Plus it’s not just me that disagreed with the premise of the article. Reading the comments afterwards, others have taken away the same thing I had. I’m sure you’re a competent author and your other submissions demonstrate more thoughtful insights. But unfortunately this one misses the mark. It’s just far too reductive for far too much of the article.