On Dec 7, 2007 7:22 AM, Jason Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 9:34 PM, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Your statement sounds like an assembler developer claiming that with > > C++'s productivity most programmers will become unnecessary. > > And most assembler programmers did, no? When an advancement comes > along you adapt or move on somewhere else.
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? > > Does that language suddenly make you more creative by a factor of 10? > > No, probably not. Who will get great ideas for new concepts, then? > > I don't think a factor of 10 is so hard to hit when going from a > restrictive language (e.g. Java, C++) to a flexible one. Again, you're changing topics. I was talking about creativity and ideas, not productivity. > But the fact is, these (from both me and you) are simply opinions. > When you say "ugly and difficult to use" there is an implicit "for me" > in there. And so there is your answer, the future will be achieved by > people who are capable of learning better languages then we have now. > There are very few places where people incapable of advancing can stay > relevant. 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. What I care about is that a high-productivity language finally becomes popular, so we have a real infrastructure with enough developers, companies, and frameworks. 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. > > Anyway, if the language will be inspired by eToys and also (but not > > only? :) intended for children then I'm pretty sure its syntax will be > > more than acceptable, so it's pointless to start a flamewar. > > 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! Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
