The Python Paradox (2004)
paulgraham.com
The Python Paradox (2004)
1–10 of 275 posts
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#2(2004)
It calls Python "esoteric"! :-D
I agree with the sentiment even if the example given hasn't aged well.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#3[2004] -- Python is no longer a "comparatively esoteric language" these days. I suppose now this might be an argument for hiring folks using Haskell or the like.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#4[2004] -- Python is no longer a "comparatively esoteric language" these days. I suppose now this might be an argument for hiring folks using Haskell or the like.
Or Rust, which is very popular on HN.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#5[2004] -- Python is no longer a "comparatively esoteric language" these days. I suppose now this might be an argument for hiring folks using Haskell or the like.
I'm not convinced this advantage is available to harness anymore. A small company can still outrun a larger company via less process, fewer internal entrenched interests, the ability to not have to worry as much about internationalization and other things you need to instantly address large markets and comply with various internal and external regulations, and you could continue this list for quite a while.
But $LARGE_CORP, or at least one of the $LARGE_CORPs in your space, is just as likely to be using Python themselves anymore, or some other relatively nice language. Even the bad ol' languages from 2004 have cleaned themselves up a lot since then. There are some potential much more isolated advantages to be harnessed here and there in certain cases by using the correct language in place the wrong one has become entrenched, but I just don't think this particular delta is anywhere near as available, in general, as it used to be.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#6It's called "anecdotal evidence", the only thing that makes this post credible(-ish) is that PG wrote it.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#7This post would sound so dumb if it didn’t come from the almighty pg.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#8It's called "anecdotal evidence", the only thing that makes this post credible(-ish) is that PG wrote it.
It's not just PG: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20212869
Although I do think between Python and Java, just pick your poison, they're not night and day. Unless you're writing 1990s Java consisting of factories of factories which is more to do with library style and over-conventionalism (back then when people were writing APIs after reading GOF). Even in 2004 I don't think there's much credibility in knowing both languages although I wasn't around.
What I find stupid that a lot of recruiters and jobs look for certain languages/technologies and require X years of experience in them. Sometimes requirements predating the existence of certain frameworks. Makes sense if you for some reason need a Kubenetes guy but mostly not.
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#9> So a language that makes source code ugly is maddening to an exacting programmer, as clay full of lumps would be to a sculptor.
I am completely repulsed by Dart, but people seem to actually not be bothered by the hideous syntax. Must be wearing Flutter colored glasses...
Re: The Python Paradox (2004)
#10[2004] -- Python is no longer a "comparatively esoteric language" these days. I suppose now this might be an argument for hiring folks using Haskell or the like.
There is a bunch of good "esotetic" languages which can be a similar differentiator in certain areas: Elixir, Zig, Pony, Chapel, Nim, even plain old Elm.