3 ms·
Simple languages are good, but we should be careful to understand why they are simpler: in many cases, the complexity is simply shifted from the language onto t
by gnuvince 12y ago
Simple languages are good, but we should be careful to understand why they are simpler: in many cases, the complexity is simply shifted from the language onto the programmer.
Though simplicity of the language is important, I feel that the ability of a language to manage complexity is more important. It is probably one reason why many people (myself included) have some issues with design choices made in Go.
- sampo 12y agoMaybe, if there were several official "levels" defined for complex languages (like Scala). So then a team that wants to keep codebases conceptually simple could decide that they are only using features up to e.g. level 3, anything above is forbidden. And the compiler would support this. A bit like you can select different languages in Dr. Racket http://docs.racket-lang.org/drracket/choose-language.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/drracket/choose-language.html
- zik 12y ago> the complexity is simply shifted from the language onto the programmer. That's not my experience with Go at all - it provides less resistance to getting code written than any other language I can think of offhand.