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 568286
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by renox on Mon 29th Jul 2013 12:09 UTC
Member since:

>These languages are designed better than modern ones.

You're talking about APL, really??
We saw APL during a class about parallelism, we even made a few programs, and if a language deserves to be named "write only" that would be APL!!
When a program didn't behave as expected you had ~0% of chances to understand what the program was doing, it was much easier to rewrite the part of the program which was causing problem than to try to understand the code.

For those who don't know APL, think about the worst obfuscated Perl program you've seen, APL is like this except probably ten times shorter and ten times more difficult to read.

Reply Score: 4