correnos

7 ms·

31.
by correnos 14y ago
>love or hate it This move is bad precisely since a lot of web and native developers alike realize that Javascript is a terrible language, and rightly hate writing it. This move serves to alienate all those devs who would rather write i
32.
by correnos 14y ago
Python is dynamically typed, but it is still strongly typed. It throws type errors consistently when you try to do things that don't make sense. Contrast with Javascript, where {} + {} is '[object Object][object Object]'.
33.
by correnos 14y ago
I think that the language is not necessarily so disconnected from the design as you say. Language influences thought, and can thus have a large effect on how people solve problems (ex. When's the last time you used a lightweight, snappy fee
34.
by correnos 14y ago
By your logic, the choice of JavaScript would only make sense if the majority of open source developers that GNOME is trying to attract work exclusively (or at least primarily) on web development. They should instead be focusing on the body
35.
by correnos 14y ago
The whole point of simplified languages like Python is that it isn't digging -- the basics of the language are super-easy to learn, and GNOME's bindigs make it easy to hammer out simple apps in it without fuss. If this move was purely choos
36.
by correnos 14y ago
Fitting that the article should end with the "best tool for the job" defense. This argument seems to be used almost monotonically to justify poor language and design choices. This move is bad for the GNOME project as it has the potential to