Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Jul 2013 14:06 UTC
General Development "There is a reason I use 'old' languages like J or Lush. It's not a retro affectation; I save that for my suits. These languages are designed better than modern ones. There is some survivor bias here; nobody slings PL/1 or Cobol willingly, but modern language and package designers don't seem to learn much from the masters. Modern code monkeys don't even recognize mastery; mastery is measured in dollars or number of users, which is a poor substitute for distinguishing between what is good and what is dumb. Lady Gaga made more money than Beethoven, but, like, so what?" This isn't just a thing among programmers. The entire industry is obsessed with user numbers, number of applications, and other crap that is meaningless when you consider programming to be art. When I post a new item about some small hobby operating system, the comments will be filled with negativity because it's no Windows or iOS, whereas only ten years ago, we'd have lively discussions about the implementation details. And then people wonder why that scene has died out.
Permalink for comment 568185
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by tomz on Sun 28th Jul 2013 16:56 UTC
Member since:

One interesting thing is BlackBerry that uses QNX and has better battery life. QNX was designed to be lightweight and embedded (both iOS-BSD-Darwin and Linux can be reduced, but not without compromise).

Much of the tool depends on the job, but also the amount of thought. And there is an art to programming, clear, concise, easily understood programs are both aesthetically better and better from an engineering side.

Too often the OS, language, and API/Libraries become a "one size fits all". Even paradigms (Top-down, object oriented) have their place, but that place is not every inch of the universe. You can force something to work, or you can find something that works.

Reply Score: 1