Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Programming Language Checklist

famicol.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#31

Post by qaq »

F-0X wrote: post #25
qaq wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but it has basically no effect on quality of the code" well if you include number of bugs of certain class as a criteria of quality it would be pretty hard to argue that there is no difference between say Rust and C.

I think C has better syntax than Rust, by miles. Rust's syntax is the bastard child of C++ and OCaml and is more than the sum of its parts. Rust code having fewer bugs has absolutely nothing to do with its syntax.

I was replying to the sentence about choice of lang. not having much effect on the quality of software.

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#32

Post by mikorym »

mhd wrote: post #28

> [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse > [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse I'm trying to think of languages that would fit that bill. That almost sounds like a challenge.

Does PHP modify code client side like Javascript?

IMO this is the inherent difficulty with Javascript. I would prefer that you have the "source code" as two separate things: the hard details of the page and the code to manipulate behaviour.

This [1] current HN front page link would illustrate what I mean. You have a colour palette (hard details) and the behaviour (code to plot the colour palette). Of course this is a simplification, but it shows the way of thinking and the way of optimising use of code and space.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21937607

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#35

Post by caiocaiocaio »

cryptica wrote: post #11

>> You appear to believe that: Syntax is what makes programming difficult This is exactly the problem. People spend so much effort looking for better syntax that they miss the most important part of programming. It's about design and structure, the syntax doesn't really matter at all. I don't even care if it's dynamically typed or statically typed or functional or not. A bad developer will produce bad code no matter…

It's true that some people can write extremely clean, beautiful Perl. Nevertheless, it's still a lot less effort to write clean, beautiful Python or Ruby.

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#36

Post by krapp »

mikorym wrote: post #32
mhd wrote: post #28

> [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse > [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse I'm trying to think of languages that would fit that bill. That almost sounds like a challenge.

Does PHP modify code client side like Javascript? IMO this is the inherent difficulty with Javascript. I would prefer that you have the "source code" as two separate things: the hard details of the page and the code to manipulate behaviour. This [1] current HN front page link would illustrate what I mean. You have a colour palette (hard details) and the behaviour (code to plot the colour palette). Of course this is a…

That's not really a difficulty of javascript the language - you're supposed to have your javascript completely separate from the HTML and CSS, with everything in static files of that type. Separation of concerns was built into the web from the beginning.

It just happens to be a popular architectural pattern at the moment to reimplement the DOM, HTML and CSS all in javascript and have one big mess of code.

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#37

Post by nulldata »

taneq wrote: post #26
BjoernKW wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++, is often quoted with this statement: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." I suppose, scathing criticism in that respect is the highest form of praise.

If you’re not making anybody angry, you’re not doing anything important.

But making people angry doesn't imply that you're doing something important though.

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#38

Post by jejones3141 »

cryptica wrote: post #11

>> You appear to believe that: Syntax is what makes programming difficult This is exactly the problem. People spend so much effort looking for better syntax that they miss the most important part of programming. It's about design and structure, the syntax doesn't really matter at all. I don't even care if it's dynamically typed or statically typed or functional or not. A bad developer will produce bad code no matter…

If syntax doesn't matter at all, then why haven't more people switched to [insert name of esoteric programming language]? Programming is indeed about design and structure, so why create tools that gratuitously distract programmers from design and structure?

Re: Programming Language Checklist

#39

Post by brutt »

F-0X wrote: post #25
qaq wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but it has basically no effect on quality of the code" well if you include number of bugs of certain class as a criteria of quality it would be pretty hard to argue that there is no difference between say Rust and C.

I think C has better syntax than Rust, by miles. Rust's syntax is the bastard child of C++ and OCaml and is more than the sum of its parts. Rust code having fewer bugs has absolutely nothing to do with its syntax.

After 3 years Rust and 20 years of C, syntax of C and C-like languages (C++, Java) looks awkward to me, because in C I need to write more code to get uglier result.
Post reply on HN