|
Agreed, a lot of it is wrong and reads like an emotional reaction to some bad things that started to happen. I think the kernel of truth here is not that all compiled languages are superior, or that independent formally specified languages are necessarily superior, but that _low frequency updates to core features_ enables building 'critical mass'. The emphasized points, e.g. code reuse, or stability, come from things like standardized formats, or well understood targets. The most salient points e.g. about cpp code not disappearing or libraries needing to be re-written are issues with ecosystems, not languages. Given the OPs attitude towards Python, it seems he doesn't understand his own point - it succeeded because it was a consistent, simple language that did not change much, until Python 3. It was bad at a lot of things but it filled a niche, consistently, meaning it gathered a lot of steam (plus he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the point of interpreted languages, which is not to provide necessarily fast or correct programs, instead to invoke battle tested code quickly, nimbly, and adaptably). |