The perfect programming language

Post by majewsky » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

atilaneves wrote: post #50

> but as soon as you enter a physics-institution anywhere in the world, FORTRAN likely reigns supreme Not at CERN, but it used to be the case. It's C++ now. > It turns out that FORTRAN is a very good match for the way physicists think about their work I don't even know what this means and I have a PhD in Physics. > You simply specify what fields you have and what pattern they are written in and the computer takes car…

Post by lllr_finger » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

atilaneves wrote: post #50

> but as soon as you enter a physics-institution anywhere in the world, FORTRAN likely reigns supreme Not at CERN, but it used to be the case. It's C++ now. > It turns out that FORTRAN is a very good match for the way physicists think about their work I don't even know what this means and I have a PhD in Physics. > You simply specify what fields you have and what pattern they are written in and the computer takes car…

Post by thekingofh » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #49

thekingofh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd consider C++ as the worst of the worst when it comes to ease of entry. Compared to, say Javascript, Ruby, or Go, Rust has a secondary set of rules that programmers have to learn before they can even do the most simple things. As an experienced programmer, I look at most Rust code with bewilderment. This is after a week of studying the language. I can look at Python and instantly understand what's happening, witho…

> Rust has a secondary set of rules that programmers have to learn The rules are not that hard if you're somewhat familiar with the constraints of functional programming. Rust requires you not to rely on shared, mutable state, unless specifically enabled - thus, by default, you're essentially writing FP code using a 'procedural' paradigm and syntax. It is also possible to do "quick, exploratory" programming in Rust;…

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #39

thekingofh wrote: post #35

There seems to be a happy point in languages where it's easy enough to get up and running, but complex enough to come back through and tighten things up. Like how Python allows a secondary file for parameter types in the function signatures. Also how tools like Flow for javascript has the bolt on type checking. To me, the perfect language seems to be one that does the annoying things like that for you and lets the pr…

Rust eases newcomers into the language a lot more than C++ does. As there are plenty of novices learning C++ as their first(!) programming language, I'm not sure why newcomers would be expected to have more of an issue with Rust

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #13

G4BB3R wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no purpose of having a so complicated language - like c++ or java - that the majority of the programmers don't even know 100% of the language. I think Elm (and somehow Go) fits this category, everyone can learn in less than a week every aspect of it. Another benefit of having a very simple language is the compile time, c++ has a awful compile time, 100kloc can take half an hour, in Elm it takes less than 5 s…

> c++ has a awful compile time I have a thoery that C++ compiler writers obsession with pointless micro optimizations is because C++'s compilation model scales horribly. Thus they desperately want their compiler to be faster. But they are fucked because the more optimizations just slows down the compile times even more.