Comments on: Cool Code v Working Code http://www.m-mad.com/playpen/2006/10/cool-code-v-working-code/ A general journal and / or notebook, containing ideas, links of interest, and so on. Mainly for me Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:07:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dmitri http://www.m-mad.com/playpen/2006/10/cool-code-v-working-code/comment-page-1/#comment-2555 Dmitri Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:07:14 +0000 http://www.m-mad.com/playpen/2006/10/cool-code-v-working-code/#comment-2555 I am not exactly sure what your problem is with "new exciting" languages. There is a clear problem with modern popular languages like java or C# that they are designed from the ground up to protect programmers from them self. They constrain programmers in a tight jacket of strict type checking, predefined syntax etc. making them on one hand more friendly to novice while preventing the rest of from expressing programing problems in a most efficient and compact form. There is not much new about Ruby or Python or many other "new" languages as they all ultimately converge to LISP, which cannot really be thought as new. No one is talking about "Silver Bullet" really, these "new" languages are indeed just incremental improvements on what we had until now, but it is also true that they help us to alleviate common sore points we have developed working with other lower level languages. I think the writing is on the wall. We are moving toward mostly two types of languages, low level once like C and very high level once like LISP, Ruby, Perl etc. I am not exactly sure what your problem is with “new exciting” languages. There is a clear problem with modern popular languages like java or C# that they are designed from the ground up to protect programmers from them self. They constrain programmers in a tight jacket of strict type checking, predefined syntax etc. making them on one hand more friendly to novice while preventing the rest of from expressing programing problems in a most efficient and compact form. There is not much new about Ruby or Python or many other “new” languages as they all ultimately converge to LISP, which cannot really be thought as new. No one is talking about “Silver Bullet” really, these “new” languages are indeed just incremental improvements on what we had until now, but it is also true that they help us to alleviate common sore points
we have developed working with other lower level languages. I think the writing is on the wall. We are moving toward mostly two types of languages, low level once like C and very high level once like LISP, Ruby, Perl etc.

]]> By: John Lam http://www.m-mad.com/playpen/2006/10/cool-code-v-working-code/comment-page-1/#comment-2552 John Lam Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:18:18 +0000 http://www.m-mad.com/playpen/2006/10/cool-code-v-working-code/#comment-2552 You've essentially made the case for dynamic languages: they minimize the amount of accidental complexity that you have in your software. Your code is more malleable, which makes it easier to change/support over time. I'm not sure what you mean about your traceability point. And on the point regarding alignment to what a business wants - that's all about process, not technology. So if you mean that technology matters less than the people using the technology, then I'd agree with you. However, assuming that you've got good people, then giving them good tools makes sense, no? You’ve essentially made the case for dynamic languages: they minimize the amount of accidental complexity that you have in your software. Your code is more malleable, which makes it easier to change/support over time.

I’m not sure what you mean about your traceability point. And on the point regarding alignment to what a business wants – that’s all about process, not technology.

So if you mean that technology matters less than the people using the technology, then I’d agree with you. However, assuming that you’ve got good people, then giving them good tools makes sense, no?

]]>