Stop comparing programming languages

  • Python is versatile
  • JavaScript is powerful
  • Ruby is elegant
  • C is essential
  • C++
  • Java is robust
  • SirDimples@programming.dev
    0·
    3 months ago

    Stop comparing tools

    • Hammer is heavy
    • Wrench is elegant
    • Saw is versatile
    • Screwdriver
    • Drill is exciting

    such pointless

  • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    4 months ago

    I was caught by surprise and for some reason this joke clicked so much that I laughed for a while. Kudos

  • SatouKazuma@programming.dev
    0·
    4 months ago

    Mfw Rustaceans don’t exist :(

    Also, JavaScript…why are you the way you are? Does anyone have advice for learning it so it makes sense? I can’t even get tutorial projects to run properly…

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      0·
      4 months ago

      The mantra that got me through JavaScript was “almost nothing we do here is able to be synchronous”.

      Everything about the language makes more sense, with that context.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      Start simple.

      And that probably requires not going with a tutorial. Because the JS ecosystem scorns at “simple”. Just make some HTML scaffold and use MDN to understand the DOM.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
      0·
      4 months ago

      I like Douglas Crockford’s talks about the “good parts” of JavaScript. They’re old and probably a bit outdated, but he explain quite well the history and why JavaScript is the way like it is.

      It clicked for me when I saw them the first time. Still hate JavaScript though.

      • wreel@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        What Crockford did was enable a lot of devs to realize there was a viable development platform built into the most prolific and open network client in the world. For that he should be commended but it should have never been taken as “this is a viable general purpose language”.

        • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
          0·
          4 months ago

          He also showed that JavaScript has more resemblance to functional programming languages rather than object oriented ones. If you try to treat it as an object oriented language like Java (like the seem to imply), you will have a bad time.

          This has changed with TypeScript though.

    • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      Can it even make sense tho? To me JS is an example of a not too good thing that people started too eagerly so now they’re trying to make it make sense.

    • chraebsli@programming.devOP
      0·
      4 months ago

      Actual definitions (my opinion):

      • HTML is website
      • CSS is style
      • JS is everywhere
      • SQL is data
      • Python is simple
      • PHP is backend
      • Markdown is README
      • YAML is config
    • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      PHP is old

      Same age as Ruby, Java and JavaScript, but younger than Python, C, and C++. 😛

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      Modern php is not bad actually. Still kinda slow and dangerous, but A LOT better than it used to be :')
      That said, i wouldnt build a web service with php still lol

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        4 months ago

        JavaScript is also not fine.

        C++ apparently has a lot of footguns if you use too many parts of it. C and orthodox C++ are fine.

        • polonius-rex@kbin.run
          0·
          4 months ago

          people say this but C is significantly more batshit than javascript

          oh you used scanf? one of the basic functions of our language? sorry that’s got a buffer overflow vulnerability so now your application is compromised

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            0·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, but as far as I understand that’s not a C vulnerability. It wasn’t added. C just exposes how the underlying CPU works.

            If you could avoid exposing dangerous memory quirks but still retain the same power… well, you’d have invented Rust. Rust is a better language than C, I agree with that.

            • polonius-rex@kbin.run
              0·
              4 months ago

              exposing the machinations of the underlying CPU with no regard for safety is like, the definition of a footgun

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                0·
                4 months ago

                Okay, but how do you code on a CPU without directly interfacing the CPU at some point? Python and JavaScript both rely on things written in mid-level languages. There’s a difference between a bad tool and one that just has limitations inherent to the technology.

                Like, to echo the meme a bit, it’s not a totally straight comparison. They have different roles.

                • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                  0·
                  4 months ago

                  a footgun isn’t inherently bad, it just implies a significant amount of risk

                  yes, if you need the ability to code on a low level, maybe C is necessary, but the times where that is actually necessary is smol

                  also rust

            • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              0·
              4 months ago

              What’s the point of having a function in the standard library if the universal recommendation is to never use it?

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                0·
                4 months ago

                Is that the recommendation? This is the first time I’ve actually seen it discussed.

                I’m wondering at this point if a new, different stdlib would be better. Or just use Rust.

      • polonius-rex@kbin.run
        0·
        4 months ago

        good luck doing frontend development without it, but it can also do backend development

        it can do everything

        • lseif@sopuli.xyz
          0·
          4 months ago

          if its acceptable to force javascript onto the backend and everywhere else, then why not write the frontend in rust, or anything else than can compile to wasm ?

          • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
            0·
            4 months ago

            WASM has no native ability to access most web APIs, including the DOM. JavaScript is literally unavoidable on the front end.

            • lseif@sopuli.xyz
              0·
              4 months ago

              javascript cannot be compiled natively for the backend or desktop either…

              also libraries like wasm bindgen allow a developer to write almost no javascript. and i wouldnt could a few lines of bootstrapping.

              im dont advocate for wasm when its not necessary. nor do i advocate for backend js when its not necessary.

              • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
                0·
                4 months ago

                Sorry, I’m not sure what your point is. I realize that you can almost completely avoid JavaScript, but the point I’m making is merely that there is a real technical limitation that limits the choices developers can make for front-end code, and although WASM is making great strides in breaking down that barrier (something I’ve been thrilled to see happen, but which is going much more slowly than I had hoped), the limitation is still there. Conversely, such a barrier has never existed on the backend, except in the sense that C limits what all other languages can do.

                • lseif@sopuli.xyz
                  0·
                  4 months ago

                  my point is that languages have their places.

                  javascript is great for the frontend. not just because it’s the only choice, but it’s also a lot easier to write code for ui than say, C or rust.

                  however i do not see a reason why it needs to run on servers or desktop apps, bar a few cases. i know node is popular, but i think fullstack devs just like to have everything in the same language, even if it makes it harder to use and slower to run.

                  likewise C, rust, go, whatever, are great for backends, embedded etc, but they shouldnt be ran on in the browser, unless there is a specific reason like heavy computation with little dom interaction.

                  just because a barrier does not exist doesnt mean that we should write programs in a language not designed for the domain.

        • odium@programming.dev
          0·
          4 months ago

          That makes it versatile, not powerful.

          When I hear powerful language, I think of languages that are good at intensive tasks like assembly, c, rust, Python (because of numpy, pandas, pyspark, cuda, etc.).

          • echindod@programming.dev
            0·
            4 months ago

            Python is powerful because it easily wraps C libraries that do real work! Just kidding mostly.

            But yeah, js isn’t a language I would describe as powerful. Ubiquitous? More capable than you would expect given it’s history? Bloated?

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              0·
              4 months ago

              Python is powerful because it easily wraps C libraries that do real work! Just kidding mostly.

              Not kidding. There’s no rule against it though. It’s good at it’s niche.

              • 9point6@lemmy.world
                0·
                4 months ago

                Does that not put JS (node) back on the table?

                I’d say it’s the low level language doing the heavy lifting, python or JS in this scenario are just front-ends.

                Hell, I think FORTH has C bindings, that’s not power, that’s mental illness

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  0·
                  4 months ago

                  Sure, but there are good and bad frontends. JavaScript has a tendency to silently fly off the handle in mysterious ways due to the crazy type system. Python will typically fail more predictably, and is famously easy to write. I know nothing about FORTH, honestly.

            • wreel@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              0·
              4 months ago

              I would argue that ASM isn’t “powerful”. It’s direct. You can access advanced features of a CPUs architecture with the trade off limited portability. Sometimes it’s necessary but power comes from being able to express complex control and data structures in a concise and readable amount of text.

              The subjective topic of what “concise and readable” means is where the language wars come in.

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        IIRC JavaScript + TypeScript is the biggest demographic of engineers in the industry if you go by GitHub stats

        I suppose you could call that power in a way

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    JavaScript is powerful

    Old joke (yes, you can tell):

    “JavaScript: You shoot yourself in the foot. If using Netscape, your arm falls off. If using Internet Explorer, your head explodes.”

  • Xylight@lemdro.idEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    • Python is NameError: name 'term\_to\_describe\_python' is not defined

    • JavaScript is [object Object]

    • Ruby is TypeError: Int can't be coerced into String

    • C is segmentation fault

    • C++

    • Java is

    Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot read the term_to_describe_java because is null at ThrowNullExcep.main(ThrowNullExcep.java:7)
Exec.main(ThrowNullExcep.java:7)
      • lastweakness@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        Crates aren’t exactly runtime dependencies, so i think that’s fine as long as the 1500+ dependencies actually help prevent reinventing the wheel 1500+ times

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        I’ll happily download 63928 depends so long as it continues to work. And it does, unlike python projects that also download 2352 depends but in the process brick every other python program on your system

    • sus@programming.dev
      0·
      4 months ago

      C++ is std::__cxx11::list<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0>, std::allocator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> > >::erase(std::_List_const_iterator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> >) /usr/include/c++/12/bits/list.tcc:158

      • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        I once forgot to put curly braces around the thing I was adding into a hashmap. If I remember correctly it was like ~300 lines of error code, non of which said “Wrong shit inside the function call ma dude”.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    4 months ago

    C++ is all of those, provided you pick any 10% of it.

    You’re not supposed to cast every spell in the evil grimoire.

    • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
      0·
      4 months ago

      Well, except “robust”, unless you have very strict code standards, review processes, and static analysis.

      (And arguably it’s never elegant, though that’s almost purely a matter of taste.)

        • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
          0·
          4 months ago

          I see where you’re coming from, but no matter how many null pointer exceptions there are in Java code, you’re almost always protected from actually wrecking your system in an unrecoverable way; usually the program will just crash, and even provide a relatively helpful error message. The JVM is effectively a safety net, albeit an imperfect one. Whereas in C++, the closest thing you have to a safety net, i.e. something to guarantee that invalid memory usage crashes your program rather than corrupting its own or another process’s memory, is segfaults, which are merely a nicety provided by common hardware, not required by the language or provided by the compiler. Even the, with modern compiler implementations, undefined behavior can cause an effectively unlimited amount of “bad stuff” even on hardware that supports segfaults.

          Additionally, most languages with managed runtimes that existed when Java was introduced didn’t actually have a static type system. In particular, Perl was very popular, and its type system is…uh…well, let’s just say it gives JavaScript some serious competition.

          That said, despite this grain of truth in the statement, I think the perception that Java is comparatively robust is primarily due to Java’s intense marketing (particularly in its early years), which strongly pushed the idea that Java is an “enterprise” language, whatever that means.