|
|
|
|
|
|
by beders
2154 days ago
|
|
|
That's oversimplification. Good programmers care about their work, doesn't matter which language. Also, use the right tool for the job. A language that forces you to think about values rather than mutable objects, will produce higher quality code as the number of ways you can shoot yourself in the foot are drastically reduced. Clojure will make you run your code constantly in the REPL. Paired with a dead-simple testing library, the desire to keep your majority of functions pure, it is not hard to see why Clojure code has higher quality. |
|
|
Yes, but the whole purpose of my post is to point out the difficulty in _finding_ the good programmers.
> Also, use the right tool for the job.
Not sure how this applies. You can build banking software in literally any programming language.
> A language that forces you to think about values rather than mutable objects, will produce higher quality code as the number of ways you can shoot yourself in the foot are drastically reduced.
Again, this is just totally unsubstantiated. You're using "higher quality code" to mean "code I like more".
> Clojure will make you run your code constantly in the REPL. Paired with a dead-simple testing library, the desire to keep your majority of functions pure, it is not hard to see why Clojure code has higher quality.
Where have we demonstrated that clojure has implicit higher quality? Also, where have we demonstrated that all clojure devs keep their functions pure? Or test them? And how does clojure enforce that?
Your last bit kinda proves my whole point, I think. You like a language a lot, and you make good use of its tools. But again, when you're looking at large groups of programmers, they're going to drastically lower the bar on what you "should" do - talking about "strong desire" and "dead simple" is totally unrelated to whether people will _actually do_ something in the wild. And what's the best way to keep a codebase good? Well first, tooling, but second, not letting bad devs get ahold of it.