Seems to be missing the obvious; ruby and python (with some framework sugar) will mostly allow you there quicker than writing java with its framework sugar. I guess the trade off is rather quick to write as opposed to quick to execute. Interestingly, i also hear my colleagues say this about C and Java. Seems to be a recurring question of human understanding vs machine, no?
I think he's saying Java is recreating what C made.I don't agree since Java allows writing of code at a higher level. (with a garbage collector etc)
Every programming language sort of recreates the basics. They are the basics after all. The neat programming languages/frameworks are the ones that 'reinvent' something. Do something in a completely new way. On a programminglanguage-level it's difficult. A lot of the practices were already invented in early languages like lisp, eifel & smalltalk.
I like Ruby because it's not ashamed of taking the great parts from other programming languages and putting it together in an easily understandable language.
Nope, i'm saying is that the more you abstract and take out of the way of the coder, the quicker they can write code. Java did this to C type languages, and people got quicker. Ruby and python did this to Java. But the inverse im often told by my C colleagues is that the abstraction means you fundamentally lose control of performance. I don't agree with this statement, but what I do agree with is that if you want high level, human oriented lprogramming languages that you can quickly write code in, you need to solve very similar problems
Wow; node.js comes along, and its like there's a hole in collective memory. Both Netscape and Microsoft had javascript rocking serverside late nineties / early 2000's (the same time as VBScript and CGI).
Also, other language interpreters ran code client-side (IE ran VBScript as I remember).
It would be nice if history was as clearly delineated as stated, but it isn't.
The jist of the argument is accurate tho; even people writing VBScript thought js was 'hacky' on the server :o)
Hmmm. What the author fails to acknowledge is the 'bakelite' phenomenon. When bakelite was first used all those years back, it's sales tanked because it looked like the proto-plastic it was. It wasn't until it was made to look like wood that it became accepted, then the consumers of it were taken on a journey back to the original aesthetic. Put simply, sometimes people aren't ready to accept the intrinsic properties of a thing unless they've been led along a path towards it.
