On Dec 8, 2007 3:05 PM, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's not what we were talking about. You claimed that we'd need > *less* developers with a better language, but today we have more than > ever. How can you explain that?
We do have more then ever, but not of the same kind. Very few of today's programmers will be applicable to tomorrow's programming environment. Though we will probably have more programmers total. > Just tell me, why doesn't Lisp or Smalltalk force everyone to advance? > Instead, why do languages like Python and Ruby make people advance? > I'd really like to know how you explain that. Here I'm not sure what you're talking about, and I'm probably not the only one. In what ways did Python and Ruby advance or make people advance? Ruby's claim to fame is basically a web framework, yet both Lisp and Smalltalk both have more advanced web frameworks. History is pretty clear if you care to look: Lisp and Smalltalk aren't less popular because of syntax, they both existing before C++ was popular or Java existed. They are less popular at the moment because of non-technical issues, like it normally is. >I don't care if it has Lisp-like syntax or > whatever, but many developers do care. Without them you'll have a hard > time building a useful infrastructure and you'll face the same > problems as the Reddit guys and anyone else who tries to run a company > with an unpopular language. No companies, no developers. Anyone else like Paul Graham who got rich by doing just that? > > Yes it was, so please do choose your words a bit more careful in future. > > Are you kidding? Don't tell me how I should choose my words! I didn't tell you how to do anything, I asked you (note the word please) to "choose your words a bit more careful" as in, don't throw useless snipes in literally every email at things you appear to not even understand. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
