Programming

15577 readers

2 users here now

All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Hexorg@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Programming languages are unconvincing (atleast C++, Java and its ilk, Smalltalk, Lisp) (leminal.space)

submitted 1 week ago by tetrislife@leminal.space to c/programming@beehaw.org

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I feel proponents of any programming language put a lot of spin around what isolated aspects it is good for, but fail to illustrate what a programmer in even one target domain gains from using it.

Are there programming language implementations unlike what is described above, that you feel back up their marketing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Dunno. If it fits the purpose and you get a lot of libraries and tooling around your specific domain... Why not make use of it? Python is easy to learn and has a lot of nice stuff for data science. Or R for statistics... Considering the absence of other complete frameworks when doing embedded programming... wouldn't you just use C++?

Maybe I don't the question. Programming languages are never perfect. Nor good for one specific and confined task... They all grew, picked up quirks. Or inherited burdens. People are trying to do 5 million different things with them at the same time... I think I'm more concerned with their usefulness and actual application, than their marketing material.

And some of the stuff they did in the 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s, when these programming languages were designed, is just a bit weird by today's standards.

[–] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago

Embedded is probably C.

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You are right Python and C++ have a huge amount of collateral available going for them. But is the utility of their language features backed up by any examples or explanations? Rigid object-orientedness as seen in Python, C++, Java, modern Javascript is not conducive to good software in practice, and we are just muddling along.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neither python or JS are "rigidly" OOP, they have support for them but you can very easily do functional or imperative programming in either. out of those I believe Java is the only one that "rigid OOP" is a fair descriptor for, and I could be wrong on that as its not a language I've used (c# which I have and started as essentially microsoft Java has moved away from that style by incorporating numerous functional features from f#)

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Fun fact, you can totally do functional programming in C++ too. Actually, it is in the top-right of the λ-cube, making it (in a specific sense) a more functional-programming language than Haskell or LISP :D

[–] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago

Object-oriented is a design pattern that the language can facilitate. Just because a language supports "is a" doesn't mean "has a" does not exist. There are a lot of design patterns. Use the best language and design patterns for your team.