←back to thread

200 points jorangreef | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Kednicma ◴[] No.24292785[source]
I hope that we're not stuck writing piles of low-level code for all eternity. We don't need more than a few pages of each low-level language, and while I do really like Zig's qualities compared to C, I'd still like to minimize the amount of Zig or C total that has to be written.

I think that our community's equivalent of "where's my flying car?" is "where's my higher-level language?"

replies(6): >>24292855 #>>24293009 #>>24293085 #>>24293278 #>>24293542 #>>24297763 #
enriquto ◴[] No.24292855[source]
> I think that our community's equivalent of "where's my flying car?" is "where's my higher-level language?"

Ηelicopters are flying cars and they are everywhere for you to use. But some people prefer to use a bicycle to commute to work, rather than an helicopter. I'd even say that most people would prefer to take a bicycle every day than an helicopter.

The same thing with lower level languages. Sometimes you do not want to be burdened by the limitations of a "high-level" language.

replies(1): >>24293021 #
1. notacoward ◴[] No.24293021[source]
> Sometimes you do not want to be burdened by the limitations of a "high-level" language.

I see very few people suffering from such burdens, but a great many suffering from its exact opposite: using a low- or mid-level language to write hundreds of lines where ten lines in a higher-level language would suffice and be more easily verified as correct.

replies(1): >>24294036 #
2. ikskuh ◴[] No.24294036[source]
> I see very few people suffering from such burdens, but a great many suffering from its exact opposite: using a low- or mid-level language to write hundreds of lines where ten lines in a higher-level language would suffice and be more easily verified as correct.

I see a huge load of people suffering from those burdens. Higher-level languages tend to be less efficient and less optimal. Yes, they take a burden from the programmer and move that burden onto the end user.

So the programmer is having the easy life, while every user now waits a second longer for the program startup, a second longer for opening the file dialog, and so on. Doesn't sound much, but if you think about it: Worst case is: 1 programmer shaved off two weeks of work on an app that is used by every person on the planet. 7 billion users lost 1 second. In total, humanity lost roughly 200 years of productive time when every person starts the app exactly once.

Modern computers are incredibly fast and we as programmers use that brutal power to be more lazy than before instead of leveraging that power to all of the users of our tools. We could have systems that go from clicking the power button to being readily available for use in less than seconds. Think about this when you chose a high level language that exchanges programmer convenience for runtime cost and think about if it other peoples time is worth your lazyness.

</rant>

disclaimer: don't take it personally, i'm just frustrated about imperformant software

replies(1): >>24303341 #
3. jorangreef ◴[] No.24303341[source]
Thanks for writing this.