11–20 of 68 posts
I love Scala's type system, though, I suppose if I didn't have a very good CS degree I'd hate it. I think it strikes a good balance between powerful and usable.
Was nice talking to you, have a good day mate
Strange that the availability of developers who can actually be recruited for the given languages isn't listed as a factor.
Strange that the availability of developers who can actually be recruited for the given languages isn't listed as a factor.
The list may be entertaining, but displays little in the way of objectivity. For instance, OOP is a major con of C++ (even though many people write C++ all day without any of it) but isn't even mentioned with regards to Java and C#? Really?
Not sure what exactly you mean by this, but many people use classes and objects all the time in C++, and see it as a pro rather than a con.
Bemusing, though lumping all functional languages together makes me balk a bit. There’s a big difference between static and dynamic functional languages. Haskell and Ocaml have a different feel than lisps/Elixir/Erlang with the latter group being much more practical in state management imho.
C is just an assembler with macros, so I think this is a bold statement...
"Haskell and every other functional-oriented programming language in its class, such as elixir, erlang, most lisps, even if they resent being lumped together"
The set of problems I would try to solve in Haskell and the set of problems I would try to solve in Erlang are disjunct. And its not just about the language, it is the whole ecosystem around it.
"Scala ... Java derivative"
???
I'm not sure if this post was an attempt of some kind of humour or not.
Man, if one of Go's pros is "good package manager", I'd hate to see what terrible package managers he's experienced. Seems weird to call out Java package management as a con in comparison. I love Scala's type system, though, I suppose if I didn't have a very good CS degree I'd hate it. I think it strikes a good balance between powerful and usable.