undefined

points

by miyoji4 hours ago |

comments

by ozim2 hours ago|

[-]

It sounds like excuses I hear from junior devs that don’t want to take time to learn existing frameworks and systems.

Juniors just label anything that requires putting effort to understand as „bad”.

There was insane growth in junior dev numbers last 3 decades. It is not like „no one knows”, it is more like there is much more people who don’t know.

by GolDDranks2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I disagree. I think that after 1992, we got memory safe languages that brought a meaningful improvement to the status quo. And after 2015, we've got low-level memory safe languages (Rust, as the major example. There are others, more experimental.)

The average programmer doesn't get better – if anything, we might be getting worse, because the tools allow us to, and the capitalist reality doesn't optimize for great programs or programmers but for more money.

But, at least, the tools are way better than in 1992, and I think we, as a collective profession, have learned a thing or two.

by anthk2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We had memory safe languages before 1992.

by GolDDranks1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Indeed, I realized I had my timeline a bit off after posting that. Of course, we have Lisp ca. 1960. (Pascal appeared 1970, but I don't think that's widely considered memory-safe. ML 1973, and that never got a widespread industry use.)

What I mean is: we had memory safe system-implementation languages in wide spread production use only after/around the times of the publication of that memo; importantly, Java.

We had memory-safe experimental programming languages, and scripting languages before that. And of course, around those times, hardware was fast enough that you could start implementing systems with scripting languages (Perl, Python, Ruby, JavaScript)

And the bit I want to correct is, of course, the point is if they are actually used. In that sense, I'd correct the introduction of Rust around 2023-2026 in actual, wide-spread use.