|
|
|
|
|
|
by cageface
5191 days ago
|
|
|
Building an actual application is a hard problem. It is. Which is why you can't afford to have the challenges of building something non-trivial compounded by the frustration of working in a broken language. If you're just slapping together another spaghetti CRUD app maybe you don't suffer enough to care. I wonder if people in other engineering disciplines defend broken practices so irrationally. I suspect they don't have the luxury. |
|
|
But my point was that all other programming languages suffer their own "broken" problems. I managed a team working in Ruby not long ago; they had no end of gripes and frustrations.
The key point is that compared to the challenge of building a complex application, those "difficulties" are trivial. And once you are at that stage, anyway, you're so used to the way your chosen language works it doesn't matter.
These are not constraints on what the language can achieve or do and simply require knowing about them so that you don't paint yourself into a corner.
Because application design is a hard problem it doesn't matter, given a relatively skilled team, what language is chosen.
This is identical in other engineering disciplines; a friend of mine works in motor design (electrical motor) and is constantly griping about nuances in the tools and equipment. Same issues.