I can usually tell when I'm going to post something provocative, but Perl is Dead. Long live Perl! has had more traffic than I expected. (Thanks, JT!)
Aside from the usual worthless debate from people who just can't get their heads away from The Broken Metric of "Intuitive" to Beginners, or the idea that maintainable software is usually not a language issue, one response stuck out.
On reddit, synthespian argued that our understanding of computer science is too immature to measure the effects of complexity on language suitability. That seems in the same vein as Larry's observation that computer scientists should pay attention to the linguists, who at least have some idea on how people communicate.
I wonder why that concept seems to elude so many programmers. (Actually, typing that sentence embarrasses me. So many programmers are lousy communicators, it shouldn't surprise me.)
(Now to post a really lame link to claim a Technorati Profile.)
Programmers and Other Smart People (Score:2)
I wonder why that concept seems to elude so many programmers. (Actually, typing that sentence embarrasses me. So many programmers are lousy communicators, it shouldn't surprise me.)
The problem is that smart people tend to overestimate in what ways they are smart. I've run into countless programmers and scientists who, for example, think they really understand politics just because they listen to NPR, although they couldn't even tell you what "cloture" means. And don't even get me started on scientists who think they understand philosophy just because they can wax poetic about stem cells.
That's not to say that you can't be smart in more than one area. But being smart in one area do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I never claimed that linguists "really understand", merely that I think they're better at understanding language than are programmers. You can't have a gross generalization without either a little disgust or 144 subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That’s somewhat of a non-sequitur. Understanding and ability aren’t necessarily linked closely, or at all. This is strikingly so the closer you get to issues involving psychology. Understanding a bunch about what your parents did wrong doesn’t mean you’ll be any better equipped to raise your own children, say.
Notation Rationalization (Score:2)
BZZT (Score:1)
That's right kids, it's time for another exciting episode of ANECDOTE or DATA!
This week's contestant is Daniel Berger, a polyglot programmer with a lot of recent experience in Ruby! Let's see what Daniel has to say.
Hm, nice one Daniel! Let's see what our expert panel has to say!
The votes are in, and they judge this as... ANECDOTE! Ooh, sorry.
Thanks for playing, Daniel!