On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 06:49:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 04:05:30 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
Programming is - for now - still a human activity, and what is important in human activities may not always be measured, and what may be easily measured is not always important. That doesn't mean one should throw away the profiler and go back to guessing, but it does suggest caution about adopting the prestigious techniques of the natural sciences and applying them to a domain where they don't necessarily fully belong.

What is almost always important is:

1. to be able to ship the product in a predictable fashion

2. not go 300-400% over budget

3. being able to train new people to maintain it in reasonable time

4. being able to add new unexpected features to the code base on request

Perl is a very expressive and productive language. And you can write maintainable software in it if you have discipline. In the real world Perl tends to lead to an unmaintainable mess with the average programmer.

Fair points that I wouldn't argue with (although I think predicting when one will finish something entirely new is a mugs game - another reason to favour prototyping and rapid iteration when possible).

But those strike me as practical questions of commercial experience, judgement, and tradecraft, and I don't see what it has to do with D or with a scientific approach, except that D may have some advantages in some cases in these areas. I don't see any essential resemblance whatsoever between D and Perl - on the contrary.

The data points we have suggest that the scarcity of D programmers is an imaginary problem, because enterprises just hire good people and they pick it up (ask Don at Sociomantic or Dicebot for example). Modern business has a misplaced emphasis on credentials. And if you have a large code base it is not like a new guy can just dive in, anyway. There is a signalling effect at work also, at least for the time being.

I am curious about something, if I might ask. You seem like you feel let down by something about D. Ie you give various reasons but I am not sure that's the motivating factor. What's behind that ? No need to answer if you prefer not to, of course.


Reply via email to