Maybe these programming in the large languages don't necessarily have to be fantastic for programming in the large, and in the long term. But they have to be great for this at least in the short term. So imagine that such a language shows itself to be good for making medium-scale applications in the first year (assuming that large-scale applications take longer to become "large-scale"). The code is uniform, people can easily get up to speed with whatever section they are working on, there are no big surprises - great. This language gets adopted in more projects because of the initial rite of passage, and some luck and marketing (hype and random factors seems to be given for new technology, in the short term). So more projects spring up following the same model. These also work great, and by now we have a handful of new, discovered concepts associated with learning and using the language. The language, ecosystem and implementations are still lean and easy to comprehend. And so some years pass.
Now this language is actually used for large applications. It's still all gravy, the code bases are still uniform and easy to understand. People can easily be trained. More projects adopt this language, or even use it to build things from scratch. It gets applied to more domains. Years pass, and things that were unobservable in the beginning start to rear its head. They weren't non-existing, but they were so minuscule in this large landscape (remember - big adoption of this language) that it was unobservable from the bigger picture. Now what was a problem for a few developers seems to be a problem for many people. For a while, they solve this pain point by educating about certain patterns to look out for and solve. This works for a while, but after a while more pain points become apparent. And like for the initial pain point, it is just not a pain point for a small group of ignorable developers, but indeed a systemic one. There seems to be something wrong. We can't simply solve this pain point with education and applying patterns - we need abstractions. There is some murmur about this - the principal point about this language was to avoid over-abstracting things. We need to practice constraint. This works for a while, but after some time the concerned voices of the people advocating this kind of restraint gets drowned out. These limitations are just too much for people to deal with. So people start suggesting and inventing so-called abstractions. And pain points are relieved. After a while you have a whole cottage industry of these abstractions. And people's day to day life with this language and its associated code bases are happier and more productive. On the other hand, there is more to learn now, and things aren't straightforward any more. You can't simply look up a library and have flat, easy to read code. You also need to learn the associated abstractions. You also notice that the technologies associated with these abstractions are getting kind of big. They are starting to take on a life of their own. And it seems like they don't really fit. Some of them feel kind of shoe-horned in, as if there was no general slot for them already installed, it just had to be jammed in there.
Now, is this language good for large-scale development? The language is still easy to learn. Somehow. There was a bunch of additions up through the years to ease some pain points. Not all of jive as well with each other, or with the original language. But with some elbow grease, it is perfectly serviceable. Not to mention all the associated technology that cropped up to assist the language in its ascent - that is the hard part. So the language is not really easy to learn any more, with the associated things. But people know it, there are code bases to maintain and it has proven that it isn't useless.
Is the language good for large-scale development? Doesn't matter. It already won and is here to stay.
It's not elitist to like something that makes you happy, even if that thing is being around a group of wealthy, intelligent people. Elitism is about how you treat the other people. Being elitist would mean refusing to socialise with any group other than the one MIT crowd because they're too 'dumb' to be fun around. I don't think that's what jkestner is suggesting; that he found a group he's happy with doesn't mean he refuses contact with the other groups.
If you two were friends, this might come across as playful ribbing ('taking the piss' as they say in the UK). But since I don't think you are friends, it comes across as mean, on your part. And you demonstrate (usefully, I think) the mistake of confusing complex and/or erudite speech/vocab with arrogance.
But actually, I think the "attribution of arrogance" is a post hoc rationalization. In truth, some people feel utterly threatened by complex, erudite speech. It is hard to be confronted with a person who is having a thought that, without a lifetime of reading with intellectual curiosity (and a good memory), cannot be fully appreciated.
Speaking intelligently can be (often is) like serving a plate of delicate, complex food in front of someone who isn't interested in this "pansy bullshit" and just wants a hot dog. And it hurts the same way, because what you prepared for them really is amazing, and not only is the effort not appreciated, but the recipient interprets the offer as an insult. This is a very painful experience, and you learn to take great care to learn who is expecting a gourmet conversation and who is not.
Having been through that exact situation, I can't agree enough. With time one may learn to sense if the context is right instead of suffering a blow. Unless he's ready to invest a lot to reach common ground. People do change, but it's a bet.
There is complexity that obscures and complexity that enlightens. Some concepts can only be conveyed adequately by using intricately detailed explanations. The same is true for simplicity -- too much simplification and a discussion devolves into a battle against strawmen. Officials are guilty of this as well.
While I understand where you're coming from and agree to some extent, I think there is a difference between "speaking `intelligently`", "having an intelligent conversation" and "leaving a comment on the internet".
I would argue that there is no such thing as the first without the second, because you are not 'speaking `intelligently`' if there is no one who understands you and is able to make a conversant reply. In such a case you are only being arrogant.
The insecurity is strong with this one. You're projecting that the person's literary references are "name dropping things in largely irrelevant contexts". There is no basis for this assumption, other than your obvious bias to jump to the conclusion that this person is elitist and goes out of their way to seem elitist. Why? Are you sensitive that you didn't get into a school like MIT? Neither did I, but nothing he is saying comes across as even remotely elitist to me.
The desire to have a community and shared culture doesn't make one elitist. The GP could have as easily said they found bookish people they could relate to by becoming a librarian. Would that have sounded elitist or was the MIT name-dropping what upsets you?
"Elite" simply means "drawn out of the larger pool". Sure, there is a lot of social baggage around that word, as in a sense of superiority, but the in the general case there is no such implication.
What's wrong with hanging around with folks who get your jokes (and vice versa)? They don't have to form the totality of your identity.
Somehow it seems uncontroversial when someone finds a group of, say, fans of their favorite team (or rock band) and says, "now I am with my people!" Is there some peculiar difference in regards to books or maths jokes?
Is it elitist to want to be around other kids you can mentally relate to? I suffered in school until I transferred to a 7th grade public magnet school. For the first time in my life I felt like I belonged because I could be myself with the other kids, most of whom happened to be from poor immigrant families (it is not a class or culture issue).
Purely biologically speaking it is a known trade-off. Intelligence allows tool usage and abstract reasoning about one's surroundings, but it comes of the cost of using up fantastic amounts of energy, which is why even in humans intelligence is not continuously used at the highest level of processing.
Don't forget higher child infant mortality and premature births. Humans are born several months earlier than optimal in order to be able to fit that huge head of ours through the birth canal.
That's not my understanding of the modern interpretation of head size and pelvis size. I believe current thinking is that the (healthy) mother simply cannot metabolise nutrients efficiently enough to sustain further growth of the (healthy) foetus beyond a certain size. Evolutionarily, the pelvis has adapted as far as necessary, and no further.
For a second I thought someone had submitted this article with their phone and by mistake left one of those "sent from my <Samsung?>" in as a trailing message.
The terseness is because it was originally developed to be written on a blackboard while lecturing.
As CS developed in the math world Iverson realized that the existing math was crap for describing computational processes. So he made his own and as it turned out it, with a little modification it was executable.
It doesn't. Not any more than other languages anyway.