4 ms·

This is not a counterpoint. Actually, I think it's a point of the article: use any language that better suits your needs. If your web app needs a library that's

by dchest 18y ago

This is not a counterpoint. Actually, I think it's a point of the article: use any language that better suits your needs. If your web app needs a library that's not available in language A, use language B. Or mix languages -- write feature X in language A, and feature Y in language B. The point is -- you can do whatever you want, as you control the environment, unlike with desktop apps. See, for example, my comment in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=595513 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=595513

helium 18y ago
The point of the article is that you can use more powerful, but less used languages when developing web based apps. That hasn't always been feasible when writing software targeting the desktop. Which of course is true, but could have implications of it's own.
Retric 18y ago
Note the 2001. I think his point had more to do with a lack of library's making any powerful language useful. Ruby on rails vs Lisp is not really in favor of lisp, but there is a reason nobody has good C web frameworks. PS: Which is something to think about, if you are spending as much money on HW as Google it might be a good idea to use C or other fast but hard to write language for some of your core functions.
- wheels 18y ago
  Well, in 2001 the hot web languages were Perl and PHP and CPAN was already riding high. I think this argument in some ways hinges on how far from the tree you're falling. If you're doing essentially a variation on a common theme, you'll be the fastest by picking a language where the bulk of the work is already done for you in a variety of reusable modules. It'd have to be a really poor language for its badness to outweigh having most of the work done for you up front. If, however, you're starting from scratch on something relatively novel, e.g. where Viaweb was in 1996 (and not so much in 2001), then it's true, you should write in the language that fits the bill rather than following the course of momentum. One proviso I would add there though is that Lisp is in the position of being fairly mature and non-traditional, unlike many flavor-of-the-weeks. There are many pains to be found in using tools which haven't stabilized yet, even if they do have a gee-whiz-bang factor. As to your postscript, Google does also extensively use C++; I think that's still fairly common in high-performance stuff at the lower levels.

by dchest 18y ago

helium 18y ago

The point of the article is that you can use more powerful, but less used languages when developing web based apps. That hasn't always been feasible when writing software targeting the desktop. Which of course is true, but could have implications of it's own.

Retric 18y ago

Note the 2001. I think his point had more to do with a lack of library's making any powerful language useful. Ruby on rails vs Lisp is not really in favor of lisp, but there is a reason nobody has good C web frameworks. PS: Which is something to think about, if you are spending as much money on HW as Google it might be a good idea to use C or other fast but hard to write language for some of your core functions.

wheels 18y ago
Well, in 2001 the hot web languages were Perl and PHP and CPAN was already riding high. I think this argument in some ways hinges on how far from the tree you're falling. If you're doing essentially a variation on a common theme, you'll be the fastest by picking a language where the bulk of the work is already done for you in a variety of reusable modules. It'd have to be a really poor language for its badness to outweigh having most of the work done for you up front. If, however, you're starting from scratch on something relatively novel, e.g. where Viaweb was in 1996 (and not so much in 2001), then it's true, you should write in the language that fits the bill rather than following the course of momentum. One proviso I would add there though is that Lisp is in the position of being fairly mature and non-traditional, unlike many flavor-of-the-weeks. There are many pains to be found in using tools which haven't stabilized yet, even if they do have a gee-whiz-bang factor. As to your postscript, Google does also extensively use C++; I think that's still fairly common in high-performance stuff at the lower levels.