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.
Thread beginning with comment 568232
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by acobar on Mon 29th Jul 2013 00:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Actually, and like on math, some things do carry a sense of beauty and amusement, like when a concise and intelligible proof is developed but, granted, they are massively outnumbered. What most of us do is akin to apply a "equation" or "recipe" to some problems with different levels of verbiage.

Reply Parent Score: 3