[AceJohnny2]

> To those Go programmers who think they will never use them - it’s worth a little learning, and once you do you will find more ways to use them to make your code more applicable.

There was a story I came across once. It went something like this:

The proponents of every gizmo think their gizmo is superior to the others, because it's got these useful features that the others lack, and isn't encumbered by the weird useless stuff those other languages have.

If only they spent time to understand those "weird useless features"...

[mikeash]

This is the Blub Paradox. http://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox

[Vendan]

What is it when you know about the power of features of the "higher level" languages, like generics, but still chose the "blub language" because of other reasons, like ease of hiring devs?

[mixedCase]

"Worse is better"

[Vendan]

or just "Better has multiple dimensions", and not all of them are "Theoretically purer" or "look how succinct I can write this code". "How hard is it to hire devs?" is just one of those dimensions.

[chc]

I think you're talking about the Blub Paradox, by the guy who started this site.

[AceJohnny2]

Huh. Yeah, that's exactly it. Funny coincidence :)

[dllthomas]

Your presentation seems less directional than the original Blub article, FWIW.

[AceJohnny2]

Indeed. I remembered some aspect of directionality, but couldn't remember how to present it in as compelling a way.

(Also, I don't really agree with some objective single value gradient for programming languages. As for anything with multiple dimensions of value, it's not sortable)

[dllthomas]

Yeah, I think the less directional presentation is probably better. While we can certainly fit things to various hierarchies (approximately or exactly), enough of programming extends beyond pure expressivity (especially into tooling, social, workflows) that it's easy to not get how useful something can be without the relevant context. (This is something that I'm trying to remember, working in JS now after a few years of professional Haskell.)

From a psychological perspective, the non-directional presentation is also more likely to leave people less defensive and more receptive to the thesis.