Worst ideas/features in programming

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 21:31:05 UTC, ClapTrap wrote:
> And chainsaws are pretty simple machines, I mean in terms of 
> design they are pretty much all at the same place. So you can 
> probably find very similarly specced machines by all the big 
> manufacturers.

Hm, I don't think anyone are making high speed chainsaws anymore 
(I think they max out at 11000RPM now). Only matters slightly 
when delimbing really. RPM goes down real fast when you enter 
anything with thickness (it is a thinning saw, so not very 
powerful, but easy handling).


> Programming languages are not like that, they're not 
> technically comparable, you pick any two languages you can find 
> a shed load of technical reasons to chose one over the other.

Most people tend to go with what-other-people-are-going-with. For 
instance, C++ is pretty much a lonely king-on-the-hill for 
graphics and audio. You go with the group that you identify with 
is using. Java for business applications. And so on.

I don't actually think average developers look for new 
opportunities when picking a language. When they pick a 
framework, they might. For language choice, I think average 
programmers go with something that makes them feel safe.


> You read up on the web, or you ask someone you think will be 
> able to help. But you don't go and ask them "I need a chainsaw, 
> which is the most nordic?".
>
> Or maybe you do? :)

Heh, when I was young I totally wanted the Jonsered 20xx TURBO. 
That "TURBO" made it seem totally awesome (but probably was no 
better, clever marketing ;^).

All the pro saws in stores were either Husqvarna or Jonsered back 
then (Swedish brands) IIRC. I doubt I would have considered any 
other brands, just assumed other brands were crap. And I still 
feel/assume that Husqvarna is better than Stihl in handling and 
build quality, and would not consider other brands than those 
two. Taking down windfalls can be dangerous, I don't want the saw 
to fail on me. As I said, you don't know if a tool is robust 
until it fails.

> Saying PhP is just as good as any other tool is not a rational 
> point of view.

The syntax isn't great, but the semantics in "modern" Php is good 
enough. I personally don't feel the package is up to a 
professional standard, although people obviously use it in a pro 
setting. So it is a feeling, more than a dissection. If I am 
going to spend a lot of time focusing on a language I want an 
aesthetics I like, so that I can write code I from time-to-time 
feel is beautiful. Can you be truly satisfied with a language if 
you don't like the looks of the code at the end of the day? I 
doubt it, but then we are in a very subjective landscape!

It is kinda like why I want the pro line Husqvarna, I want the 
top handle to be in metal. It gives me a better feeling and I can 
focus more on the work (and forget about the tool). It is kinda 
subjective though, whether one feels a metal handle is better 
than a plastic handle.