[jacknews]

I don't agree languages have got worse, it's much easier to build anything today than in the 70s, not just because of tooling and libraries, but the languages themselves are just easier and help build structure.

What makes development 'worse' today I think, is much more of it is just integrating with myriad other systems, tools, etc, which can be dull and frustrating, and I'm sure no-code will just make it much worse.

And then there's scrum.

[Flankk]

It's not easier to build anything. It's easier to build web applications and video games but we already have way too many of those. If you're doing something innovative you will find things have indeed gone backwards in a fundamental way.

[jacknews]

How can this be true? You still have the option of installing a K&R C compiler or whatever.

What has changed is that the complexity required of software has vastly increased. And perhaps there's an argument that the tools and languages have not kept up.

But try developing anything today with an old version of any language or tools, and it's not better, else obviously that's what everyone would do.

[Flankk]

People choose what language they learn based on what jobs are available. Companies choose what language they use based on what FAANG companies use. What you're saying is not obvious, it is a naive assumption. Popular does not equal good. If that's what you think you can go ahead and explain why Java is superior to C++. I don't think you even know why it rose to prominence.