Modern php is not bad actually. Still kinda slow and dangerous, but A LOT better than it used to be :')
That said, i wouldnt build a web service with php still lol
Python is NameError: name 'term_to_describe_python' is not defined
JavaScript is [object Object]
Ruby is TypeError: Int can't be coerced into String
C is segmentation fault
C++
Java is
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot read the termToDescribeJava because is null at ThrowNullExcep.main(ThrowNullExcep.java:7)
Exec.main(ThrowNullExcep.java:7)
CSS j ust # sucks
<HTML />
Kotlin is type inference failed. The value of the type parameter K should be mentioned in input types
Go is unused variable
Rust is Compiling term v0.1.0 (/home/james/projects/Term)
I once forgot to put curly braces around the thing I was adding into a hashmap. If I remember correctly it was like ~300 lines of error code, non of which said "Wrong shit inside the function call ma dude".
Crates aren't exactly runtime dependencies, so i think that's fine as long as the 1500+ dependencies actually help prevent reinventing the wheel 1500+ times
I'll happily download 63928 depends so long as it continues to work. And it does, unlike python projects that also download 2352 depends but in the process brick every other python program on your system
Also, JavaScript...why are you the way you are? Does anyone have advice for learning it so it makes sense? I can't even get tutorial projects to run properly...
I like Douglas Crockford’s talks about the “good parts” of JavaScript. They’re old and probably a bit outdated, but he explain quite well the history and why JavaScript is the way like it is.
It clicked for me when I saw them the first time. Still hate JavaScript though.
What Crockford did was enable a lot of devs to realize there was a viable development platform built into the most prolific and open network client in the world. For that he should be commended but it should have never been taken as "this is a viable general purpose language".
Can it even make sense tho? To me JS is an example of a not too good thing that people started too eagerly so now they're trying to make it make sense.
And that probably requires not going with a tutorial. Because the JS ecosystem scorns at "simple". Just make some HTML scaffold and use MDN to understand the DOM.
Oof, slow compile times to target, of all things, the JVM? Implicit methods? Some(null)? Function call syntax where the difference between a tuple argument and a sequence of non-tuple arguments can be determined by whether or not there's a space before the parentheses?
There are definitely some major issues with Scala.
(Jokes aside, all programming languages have their good and bad things. Some just have more bad than good. And i say that as a C/C#/typescript/asm developer :p
I was a professional C++ developer for several years, and came to the conclusion that any professional C++ developers who don't acknowledge its flaws have a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
This is true of every language. If you can't think of things you don't like about the language you're working in (and/or its tooling) you just don't know the language very well or are in denial.
The ecosystem is really it, C# as a language isn't the best, objectively Typescript is a much more developer friendly and globally type safe (at design time) language. It's far more versatile than C# in that regard, to the point where there is almost no comparison.
But holy hell the .Net ecosystem is light-years ahead, it's so incredibly consistent across major versions, is extremely high quality, has consistent and well considered design advancements, and is absolutely bloody fast. Tie that in with first party frameworks that cover most of all major needs, and it all works together so smoothly, at least for web dev.
The only reason I use C++ is because that's what all the main audio plugin tools use. It's warty and annoying, although I'm confused why Java would rank higher
I shit on JavaScript for years... but Deno (built around Rust) is honestly one of the most pleasant tools I've used for development, and you get all the completion in VS Code.
My main experience using C++ was because I got stuck modifying an app written with Qt Creator, an utterly insane cross-platform framework that used (still uses? I dunno, only people in Finland ever used it in the first place) C++ for the under-the-hood processing and Javascript for the UI. For good measure, the application developers had modified all the C++ stuff with macros to the point where it was barely even recognizable as C++. Fortunately, it mattered not at all because the app's customers were ISPs who just wanted a Skype clone so they could say they had one even though none of their customers ever used the damn thing.
Perl? Nah, in this country its vb6, C#, java, gupta/centura and javascript :')
Source: been working for multiple healthcare market leaders in this country for 5 years now
Inertia is a mofo. I did embedded programming for industrial automation almost thirty years ago, building upon and expanding an existing nightmare of C code... and I bet there's still some of mine running something out there to this day.
Pretty much all of the command line coreutils programs I use daily are in C; cd, ls, pwd, touch, rm, etc. If I want to write some small utility I'll usually reach for a scripting language first like bash python ruby etc, but if it needs to be small and fast I'll use C instead.
The thing with C is that it's almost always going to be the fastest high-ish level language and it has an extremely stable ABI. Self contained code written 30 years ago will likely compile with only minor (and sometimes no) tweaks today. You're lucky to go 3 years on C++ without something fairly big breaking due to changes in the underlying language and ABI.
This is a really good post about why C is so difficult to seriously consider replacing, or even to avoid by using a different language for certain projects: https://faultlore.com/blah/c-isnt-a-language/
It isn't just a language, but it is a language - as it eventually gets around to saying, but it starts off by saying that it isn't, then later corrects itself to say that it is, etc. I feel like the focus of this ignores the historical context of what C was written to be for - at the time there was like Assembly, BASIC, Fortran (?), other long-dead languages like was it A and/or A* or whatever, there was a B language too! (developed by Bell Labs, if Google can be trusted these days), etc. - and C was developed to be better than those. So saying that like it lacks type conversions is very much missing the point - those were not invented yet. A lawn mower also lacks those, but it's okay bc it doesn't need them:-) I am probably nit-picking far too many points, I suppose to illustrate that the style of the article became a hindrance to me to read it b/c of those reasons. But thank you for sharing regardless.