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 568219
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Oh goody
by Kroc on Sun 28th Jul 2013 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh goody"
Member since:

Apologies for waxing poetical. "Purism" in simplest terms is best described as "being more meta". The more meta a language it is, the "purer" it is perceived -- that is, more abstract and layered. Templates, Generics, Factories, Overloading, Abstract/Polymorphic classes and so on. Each is a useful feature, but a "pure" language is one that begins with very high-level concepts that must be understood before one can begin to understand the code. The code becomes opaque and incomprehensible to anybody who does not have the "knowledge" of these high-level meta concepts about how the code is organised, structured and designed. Anybody who does not understand this inside-knowledge is looked down upon and nobody is willing to explain it to you.

Reply Parent Score: 3