|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re: Choose the most powerful languageby mothra (Hermit)
|on May 01, 2001 at 17:46 UTC||Need Help??|
I'll start by saying that, in general, I've gotten tired of X vs. Y debates (read "religious wars"). BUT, this article is hardly that. I find it a compelling case to perhaps even learn Lisp in the not to distant future (but then again, I'm doing a fair amount of Python on the side right now so Mr. Graham probably wouldn't look too far down on me :).
One of the excellent points made:
Most Perl hackers would agree that Perl 5 is more powerful than Perl 4. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that one high level language can be more powerful than another.
How true, and a near epiphany for me, a hacker (in the making...:) who started to believe that all languages were pretty much equal. This simple quote reminds me that all languages really aren't created equal, but one's level of programming knowledge is what may help to choose the best tool for their particular task, and also which tools will often fall short for them. It's also logical to conclude that this quote can extend to far more than just programming languages, and far more than just computers for that matter.
His point about how startups should seek to do something different -- in terms of what tool they'll develop with to give themselves a better chance to succeed -- also raises a valid point too, IMHO.
We knew that everyone else was writing their software in C ++ or Perl. But we also knew that that didn’t mean anything. If you chose technology that way, you’d be running Windows. When you choose technology, you have ignore what other people are doing, and consider only what will work the best.
is something I've been practicing for a while. And it's the avoidance of choosing a language based solely on its marketing campaign that is one of the signs of someone who has a clue. :)
I've been shown a reason to change the way I think.
I'm a different programmer now than I was before I ate my toast this morning.