3 ms·

Isn't it just a little sad that the biggest selling point of a language is that mediocre developers won't cause too many problems with it?

by ayrx 12y ago

adamors 12y ago
It's not sad, because most developers are mediocre. It may not apply to you, but if you work in the industry long enough you realize that very few of your colleagues are good/great. And there's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to build systems that have to be maintained over multiple years, you somehow have to compensate for that. Java is one compensation.
- MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
  Exactly. By definition, most developers are mediocre, and thats okay. Platform stability and limiting complexity is really important in the long run, so (luckily, imho) C++ and Scala are non-starters.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    > Exactly. By definition, most developers are mediocre, and thats okay. That doesn't say much. So yes, most developers are average, but what is average? Is it necessarily developers who need training wheels, helmets and elbow pads in order to protect themselves and others? That may be the reality, for all I know. But that isn't necessarily a timeless truth. Take a room of expert programmers; now most of them are mediocre (average), relative to each other (imagine a really big room with a lot of experts, if you must). But that doesn't necessarily mean that they need languages that cramp their style in order to mitigate whatever damage they might do. "Mediocre" is the same as "average", but with more negative connotations. Hence, when someone says that some people are 'mediocre', the immediate thought might be "bad". Then it becomes obvious that tools need to hinder these bad developers from screwing up too much. But mediocre is just a relative term, and can mean that they are really bad developers who create 100 bugs for every feature they implement, or that they are really competent, reliable developers. I won't comment on the skill of the average (mediocre) developer. But I think that saying "most are mediocre" can easily hint at "most are bad" (because of connotations, not necessarily because that was the intent).
    - MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
      True, there is a negative connotation there - maybe using that term was a mistake. There certainly are huge variations in baseline skill depending on location and line of business. I was thinking of the more or less generic enterprise software environment in firms whose main business is not software development, and which reside outside silicon valley or other tech hubs.

Isn't it just a little sad that the biggest selling point of a language is that mediocre developers won't cause too many problems with it?

by ayrx 12y ago

Isn't it just a little sad that the biggest selling point of a language is that mediocre developers won't cause too many problems with it?

adamors 12y ago

It's not sad, because most developers are mediocre. It may not apply to you, but if you work in the industry long enough you realize that very few of your colleagues are good/great. And there's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to build systems that have to be maintained over multiple years, you somehow have to compensate for that. Java is one compensation.

MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
Exactly. By definition, most developers are mediocre, and thats okay. Platform stability and limiting complexity is really important in the long run, so (luckily, imho) C++ and Scala are non-starters.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > Exactly. By definition, most developers are mediocre, and thats okay. That doesn't say much. So yes, most developers are average, but what is average? Is it necessarily developers who need training wheels, helmets and elbow pads in order to protect themselves and others? That may be the reality, for all I know. But that isn't necessarily a timeless truth. Take a room of expert programmers; now most of them are mediocre (average), relative to each other (imagine a really big room with a lot of experts, if you must). But that doesn't necessarily mean that they need languages that cramp their style in order to mitigate whatever damage they might do. "Mediocre" is the same as "average", but with more negative connotations. Hence, when someone says that some people are 'mediocre', the immediate thought might be "bad". Then it becomes obvious that tools need to hinder these bad developers from screwing up too much. But mediocre is just a relative term, and can mean that they are really bad developers who create 100 bugs for every feature they implement, or that they are really competent, reliable developers. I won't comment on the skill of the average (mediocre) developer. But I think that saying "most are mediocre" can easily hint at "most are bad" (because of connotations, not necessarily because that was the intent).
  - MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
    True, there is a negative connotation there - maybe using that term was a mistake. There certainly are huge variations in baseline skill depending on location and line of business. I was thinking of the more or less generic enterprise software environment in firms whose main business is not software development, and which reside outside silicon valley or other tech hubs.