One of the many problems with “programming language advocacy” culture is that the advocates tend to believe in the design of their language even more than the designers, including coming up with ridiculous justifications for omissions
-
Show this thread
-
Most of my Java experience was pre-1.5; back then, Java programmers would malign generics and closures, because Java didn’t have them, and Java is the best language in the world, so they must be bad, right?
3 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
Programming language designers are omniscient, omnipotent gods; they have their own biases and blind spots, schedule pressure is a thing, and while they must to some extent believe what they’re doing matters, it can also be “just a job” at times too
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
However for a truly devoted language zealot, every decision in their favorite language must have some higher purpose, perhaps inscrutable to a mere mortal like themselves, or so they think
2 replies 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread
Honestly, I think it’s healthy for programming languages to be designed by people without a lot of name recognition. Cuts down on the cultish mentality.
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.