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

Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

bytecode.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#41

Post by Zak »

systems wrote: post #30
mojuba wrote: post #17

Yes to all that but still, my pet theory is that languages rise on one or two "killer features" that move the entire industry forward, and not the overall cuteness or lovability. I can suggest a list of one killer feature per each popular language, i.e. things that these languages were the first to introduce and influence many successors: C: extreme conciseness C++: implicit destructors / RAII Python: removed curly b…

C++ succeeded because it was Object Oriented, people didn't start talking about RAII as C++ killer feature until years later python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened swift succeeded because apple pushed it to replace objective c, that if you consider swift succeeded anyway, i agree with your premise, languages need one ke…

I don't think C++ succeeded because it was object-oriented. I think C++ was object-oriented because classes were an abstraction that could layer on top of C with fairly low overhead, giving it more expressive power without much mandatory cost to size or speed.

In other words, object-orientation was the means, not the end.

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#42

Post by shagie »

systems wrote: post #30
mojuba wrote: post #17

Yes to all that but still, my pet theory is that languages rise on one or two "killer features" that move the entire industry forward, and not the overall cuteness or lovability. I can suggest a list of one killer feature per each popular language, i.e. things that these languages were the first to introduce and influence many successors: C: extreme conciseness C++: implicit destructors / RAII Python: removed curly b…

C++ succeeded because it was Object Oriented, people didn't start talking about RAII as C++ killer feature until years later python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened swift succeeded because apple pushed it to replace objective c, that if you consider swift succeeded anyway, i agree with your premise, languages need one ke…

> python succeeded because it wasn't Perl's TMTOWTDI, everyone expected ruby to overtake python, but .. for some reason that never happened

Ruby allows (and to some extent encourages) unreasonable code.

It's not bad code (and in some cases extremely elegant), but it's code you can't reason about.

Being able to open any class (or object) and add new methods to it makes tracking how execution works extremely difficult.

The language allows for very undisciplined things to work - its great for the "scripting" and rapid prototyping - but unless you're going to throw it away the next day of having to maintain that code it starts weighing on the future speed of working.

Undisciplined code can be handled by making sure everyone on the team is disciplined in its use and documenting how things work... but that rarely reflects reality.

And so, you move to a language that enforces more discipline in how one uses it and is more reasonable in its execution.

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#43

Post by giancarlostoro »

citelao wrote: post #29
purplemoonx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the more appropriate analogy is there's more to a drill than the drill. When you buy a Milwaukee drill, because it shares a battery with other Milwaukee parts, it's easier to buy more Milwaukee tools. So it helps to choose a drill brand with the ecosystem you like, not just one that's a serviceable drill. (Or you could argue that a language's ecosystem is part of the dang language. Which I agree with).

I still attribute a rich OOTB standard library for Go’s success. You have an OOTB production capable web HTTP server baked into the standard library since practically day 1?

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#44

Post by benj111 »

purplemoonx wrote: post #22
jillesvangurp wrote: post #19

There's more to a language than the syntax. The libraries, tools, and the ecosystem of developers, documentation, support, etc. are much more important. There are quite a few academic languages that are interesting to people that never really gain much traction because the people behind them just never commit to proper ecosystem building. Switching languages is a big time commitment. Or at least it used to be. I find…

[flagged]

So 2 languages are the same if they have the same syntax but 1 is interpreted, and not safe, whereas the other is compiled and safe?

Where one has a large library and runs on many platforms, and the other doesn't?

Where one behaves like PHP with respect to equality, and the other doesn't?

The closer metaphor is the handle. A saw handle may be ergonomic, that doesn't mean the quality of the blade is good, or even suitable for what you're trying to cut.

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#45

Post by Geof25 »

Zak wrote: post #20

I was hoping it would address Lisp. Lisp is fun. The interactivity and instant turnaround of a Lisp REPL is still rarely matched in other languages. Common Lisp also solved a significant issue other languages didn't address well until much later: the ability to write high-level code that was fast on cheap hardware around the turn of the millennium. Lisp didn't get popular around the turn of the millennium. Success st…

I often hear about lisp but never actually figured out what tooling you need Is it interpreted or compiled language? Why should I use it instead of any other languages?

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#46

Post by purplemoonx »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #43
citelao wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more appropriate analogy is there's more to a drill than the drill. When you buy a Milwaukee drill, because it shares a battery with other Milwaukee parts, it's easier to buy more Milwaukee tools. So it helps to choose a drill brand with the ecosystem you like, not just one that's a serviceable drill. (Or you could argue that a language's ecosystem is part of the dang language. Which I agree with).

I still attribute a rich OOTB standard library for Go’s success. You have an OOTB production capable web HTTP server baked into the standard library since practically day 1?

Have you never heard of Node.js where they got the idea from

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#48

Post by jottinger »

Zak wrote: post #20

I was hoping it would address Lisp. Lisp is fun. The interactivity and instant turnaround of a Lisp REPL is still rarely matched in other languages. Common Lisp also solved a significant issue other languages didn't address well until much later: the ability to write high-level code that was fast on cheap hardware around the turn of the millennium. Lisp didn't get popular around the turn of the millennium. Success st…

Hah! SO MANY LANGUAGES got skipped, even from my own CV. I wanted to address Louis/II, for goodness' sake, but it's a CODASYL tool, and not a lot of people remember CODASYL from experience. (Nor should they: I liked it, but... nah, RDMS won for good reasons.)

Lisp is certainly fun, and it lives today and is influential today in multiple environments; I have a Clojure app I work on for my own amusement. And it does have commercial appeal, but it's limited; the three axis thing applies.

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#49

Post by oblio »

purplemoonx wrote: post #33
citelao wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more appropriate analogy is there's more to a drill than the drill. When you buy a Milwaukee drill, because it shares a battery with other Milwaukee parts, it's easier to buy more Milwaukee tools. So it helps to choose a drill brand with the ecosystem you like, not just one that's a serviceable drill. (Or you could argue that a language's ecosystem is part of the dang language. Which I agree with).

Fair points, but those preferences seem more grounded in reality than the abstract reasons people say they love a language beyond its interface

Libraries and frameworks and package management absolutely matter. They're not some abstract thing, they could be the difference between something being done in 6 months or in 2 years.

Why do you think people put up with Spring?

Re: Because It's Not Fun Enough: why languages fail

#50

Post by jottinger »

wollowollo wrote: post #23

For quite a period up to LLMs, coders had high amounts of social power and gleefully asserted it by e.g. flouting dress codes and asserting their preference in tool choices. This is why we still see articles like this arguing everything from a point of view akin to that of a hobbyist, rather than articles by heads of engineering establishing that this kind of screwdriver is optimal for industrial automobile assembly.

Note: am a head of engineering, and I've been writing code both as a vocation and a job for decades. I see it from a lot of sides; maybe not EVERY side, I'm not a machine (yet), but I don't think I have a singular myopic vision of ANY of it. YMMV.
Post reply on HN