Hacker News Reader

There's no BS to call here.

The point of the post is to show diminishing returns are occurring with ever evolving languages. The argument one should use X language because you can develop in it faster is increasingly not useful to discuss. You are stuck in the weeds arguing X will always win, when the point is there's nothing to win.

View on HN

I disagree. Many programming languages are here just because they're good enough, not because they are perfect. For example, C is a good enough systems language. However, when compared to Rust, it's worse at most important criteria, including being more error-prone and less expressive (it's absurdly simple, though). Now you say there's nothing to win, but to me the advantages are obvious: I can avoid several classes of critical vulnerabilities and at the same time not substantially lose any performance.

How would that be possible without search for the holy language grail?

> it's absurdly simple, though

C is only "absurdly simple" as long as you don't touch undefined behavior, which is nearly impossible in non-trivial programs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com