[altmanaltman]

You are missing the point here. Single binary files are not what makes a programming language good or bad.

Its like saying "I want a red car because it goes fast" when people are actually disucssing how the engine works or how easy/difficult is it to drive etc.

You cannot base your like/dislike on that single criteria and expect that to actually make sense.

[dijit]

This totally depends.

For some people, Linux package management is not solved. Static binaries at least work for deployment.

More useful for client software, but you can’t just dismiss someone for having this preference given the poor viability of running arbitrary binaries on Linux due to GNU’s userland style.

[johnisgood]

No, it does not depend. Your parent is correct with his analogy.

Linux package management is solved, if it depends on something, it depends on the specific Linux distribution, but "Linux" package management is definitely solved.

[johnisgood]

Off: I thought I am becoming dumb, but this really puts me in a new perspective. The odd thing is that even people who work in IT hold similar beliefs. I am not entirely sure what is going on. Favoring a language so blindly seems like a thing, apparently? For example they seem to have convinced themselves that Rust is "safe" if you use it for anything (without implementing the security features) because it is (memory) safe? I did not imagine beginners would make such a mistake either, but alas.

I noticed your comment is getting downvoted. I wish I knew why though. Is it because of your analogy? Is it because they think that somehow "single binary" has anything to do with the programming language? Would like to know. I am not going to assume that it is a confirmation of what I wrote earlier.