4 ms·

Yes, we get it, but repeatedly stating "A language is a tool, not an identity." every thread about X programming language adds nothing to the conversation. 1.

by jsnk 13y ago

Yes, we get it, but repeatedly stating "A language is a tool, not an identity." every thread about X programming language adds nothing to the conversation. 1. Learning a new programming language or a framework requires a significant effort for someone to use it comfortably. No matter how smart you are, there's the inevitable "grind" you have to go through to achieve the level of familiarity with a new language. It's only natural that people gravitate towards what they are familiar with and grow attached to what they know more. 2. Identifying oneself with some programming language is completely fine. Would you have any problem if Dennis Ritchie identified himself as a C programmer or Matz as a Ruby programmer?

uniclaude 13y ago
> repeatedly stating "A language is a tool, not an identity." every thread about X programming language adds nothing to the conversation. You're being unnecessarily harsh, this type of comment might have educational value for newer developers. The fact that a programming language is a tool is not understood by all of us, and I personally admit that a very similar message I read on IRC opened my eyes when I was younger. > Would you have any problem if Dennis Ritchie identified himself as a C programmer or Matz as a Ruby programmer? Your own example ruins your whole argument. Matz is a programmer, he invented Ruby and wrote its interpreter in C. Calling him a C programmer or a Ruby programmer makes therefore very little sense. Same goes for Dennis Ritchie and the assembly he used to create C.
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  To be pedantic: Ritchie did not write C in Assembly, he wrote it in C. Or more accurately, version N of C was written in version N-1 of C. Version 0 of C could be compiled by the B compiler. Your point still stands though: you need to be fairly competent at assembly language to write a compiler that emits machine code.
  - uniclaude 13y ago
    Either you or the wikipedia article is wrong. >"The origin of C is closely tied to the development of the Unix operating system, originally implemented in assembly language on a PDP-7 by Ritchie and Thompson, incorporating several ideas from colleagues." It's also written that the B rewrite only came later.
    - bryanlarsen 13y ago
      Unix was originally written in assembly language.

by jsnk 13y ago

uniclaude 13y ago

> repeatedly stating "A language is a tool, not an identity." every thread about X programming language adds nothing to the conversation. You're being unnecessarily harsh, this type of comment might have educational value for newer developers. The fact that a programming language is a tool is not understood by all of us, and I personally admit that a very similar message I read on IRC opened my eyes when I was younger. > Would you have any problem if Dennis Ritchie identified himself as a C programmer or Matz as a Ruby programmer? Your own example ruins your whole argument. Matz is a programmer, he invented Ruby and wrote its interpreter in C. Calling him a C programmer or a Ruby programmer makes therefore very little sense. Same goes for Dennis Ritchie and the assembly he used to create C.

bryanlarsen 13y ago
To be pedantic: Ritchie did not write C in Assembly, he wrote it in C. Or more accurately, version N of C was written in version N-1 of C. Version 0 of C could be compiled by the B compiler. Your point still stands though: you need to be fairly competent at assembly language to write a compiler that emits machine code.
- uniclaude 13y ago
  Either you or the wikipedia article is wrong. >"The origin of C is closely tied to the development of the Unix operating system, originally implemented in assembly language on a PDP-7 by Ritchie and Thompson, incorporating several ideas from colleagues." It's also written that the B rewrite only came later.
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    Unix was originally written in assembly language.