3 ms·
Or, in other words, advanced languages have some cognitive overhead that people working on extraordinarily complex applications can't spare? Maybe. Then again,
by Locke1689 12y ago
Or, in other words, advanced languages have some cognitive overhead that people working on extraordinarily complex applications can't spare?
Maybe. Then again, I've been using C++ again recently and I feel like the cognitive overhead there is so huge that I can barely understand my simple programs. Nonetheless, Microsoft pretty much runs on C++ (and C#).
- spoiler 12y agoI've started recently working in and properly learning C++ (most because I hoped the OO model would suit me over C). Sometimes, I get so frustrated by how weird the syntax can get (the templates always confuse me to the point I have to stop and slowly read the code before I get its meaning)!
- pron 12y agoIt's not so much that they can't but that they won't. And the same people don't use C++'s confusing features (crazy template stuff) either. But the problem isn't just the cognitive overhead inherent to the language, but that of the switching cost. As I said in another comment, while Haskell certainly has some advantages, they don't easily overcome the switching cost. People writing compilers happily pay the cognitive price for the switch because that's their core business, while those doing CRUD apps can certainly afford the price.