| Im sure some languages, are created just for the sake of sintax, others to prove a marginal point, and others because the author want to be a tech celebrity.. this is "the noise" i was refering to.. We can spot really important languages, that actually put something new in the table.. with real originality and genius.. and the immitators that follow The clear evidence to what im talking about, is that if you think in a niche that you wnat to create a program, you will have 3 or more langs to choose.. Choice is good? not always.. because once we create codebases in the langs we choose we are trapped.. All the languages we heard of, create programs somehow, otherwise we wouldnt know about.. but some are more pragmatic than others.. My sentence was to explain that the authors of the language were thinking more in the enginnering aspect, than in some theoretical or research There are a lot of research languages out there... so in my point of view, they were not created with a more pragmatic goal.. They are cool and will push the envelope.. sure! but i dont understand the elitism here, trying to bash things that were created thinking more in the enginnering axis..
while puttting some "not working yet" but "research using the poor programmers as rat labs" in a pedestal..and in the same level as something that works, because it were design to work in a more conservative matter |