On Saturday, 14 May 2016 at 07:09:00 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 at 09:57:16 UTC, Chris wrote:
"basing themselves on interpreted, slow languages that
favoured ‘easy to learn’ over ‘easy to maintain’."
"Easy to learn" often correlates with "easy to maintain". I
think you are referring more to static typing vs dynamic typing.
That was a quote from the article, those weren't my words, but
I'd agree with them.
Yep. Frustration kicks in sooner or later. I always tell
people not to use scripting languages for bigger or real world
projects.
You mean like gmail, youtube, Visual Studio Code, emacs...?
So why then do we have Go, C# and Rust? That a service is run in
a certain language is no proof. I've an old homepage that was
written in PHP. It works, you can add to it. But is it easy to
maintain? Sure Google have loads of coders who can maintain even
the messiest code base. You could write a service in Perl. That
doesn't mean it's a good language for the task at hand.
[snip]
