increasingly really feel like dynamic programming languages are underserved by existing production profiling/tracing tools
-
Show this thread
-
there's so much investment in JVM/C/Go tooling (which is awesome!!) and the tools we have for ruby/Python etc are so much less powerful
6 replies 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @b0rk
It's interesting to look back ~30 years to a time when this was inverted: the dynamic languages Lisp and Smalltalk had amazing tooling and the static languages less so. Ruby/Python took the Lisp/Smalltalk semantics but left the ecosystem on the floor.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @avibryant @b0rk
Whereas Java, in particular, took the Smalltalk implementation and tooling (see: Self/Strongtalk evolving into Hotspot & Visual Age Smalltalk evolving into Eclipse), but dropped all the dynamism. And from where I stand now, of the two, that was the better choice.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @avibryant
that's fascinating! do you think it's just because of the interests of the people who started those language, or like there were larger market forces?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @b0rk
My guess would be something like: the more recent successful dynamic languages were successful in part because of the success of Linux and their ability to ride that wave by meeting the expectation of unix “scripting languages”;
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @avibryant @b0rk
but those expectations don’t include, and might even include design constraints that run counter to, advanced developer tooling and high-performance implementations.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
If you give up on being able to slap a #! at the top of your source file, you unlock some design space you can use to prioritize tooling instead.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.