The premise as I understand it is that modern languages are broken and have failed to evolve. An interesting point. A good start for an argument.
However, his rant devolves into:
"REAL WORLD, modern datatypes, built-in, literal, batteries-included
PLEASE!!! If the following aren't first-class types with first-class
literal constructors / representations supported at the language
level then your new programming language ISN'T EVEN ON THE PLAYING
FIELD"
No evidence. Not even a mention as to how he's reasoned that these statements are true. Nothing.
Why does my compiler/interpreter need to have an "email" data-type? Why is my language not even "on the playing field" without it? Why are there so many successful programming languages then that survive without it?
I can empathise with his frustrations. There are plenty of times on the job when I feel more like a glorified digital plumber. Deserializing/reserializing data and pushing it through various pipes isn't glorious work. But lets take the argument from there rather than flapping our arms and making frantic claims that everything the way it is is inherently broken because it's not the way we'd like it to be.
(And maybe he does just need a good dose of Lisp ;)
I think his point is that most language designers seem concerned about abstruse things and seem less concerned about his everyday problems. Someone's got to be concerned about his everyday problems to do the best possible job of designing a language to make his life easier.
The premise as I understand it is that modern languages are broken and have failed to evolve. An interesting point. A good start for an argument.
However, his rant devolves into:
"REAL WORLD, modern datatypes, built-in, literal, batteries-included PLEASE!!! If the following aren't first-class types with first-class literal constructors / representations supported at the language level then your new programming language ISN'T EVEN ON THE PLAYING FIELD"
No evidence. Not even a mention as to how he's reasoned that these statements are true. Nothing.
Why does my compiler/interpreter need to have an "email" data-type? Why is my language not even "on the playing field" without it? Why are there so many successful programming languages then that survive without it?
I can empathise with his frustrations. There are plenty of times on the job when I feel more like a glorified digital plumber. Deserializing/reserializing data and pushing it through various pipes isn't glorious work. But lets take the argument from there rather than flapping our arms and making frantic claims that everything the way it is is inherently broken because it's not the way we'd like it to be.
(And maybe he does just need a good dose of Lisp ;)