I feel proponents of any programming language put a lot of spin around what isolated aspects it is good for, but fail to illustrate what a programmer in even one target domain gains from using it.

Are there programming language implementations unlike what is described above, that you feel back up their marketing?

  • Life is Tetris@leminal.spaceOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    You are right Python and C++ have a huge amount of collateral available going for them. But is the utility of their language features backed up by any examples or explanations? Rigid object-orientedness as seen in Python, C++, Java, modern Javascript is not conducive to good software in practice, and we are just muddling along.

    • Womble@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Neither python or JS are “rigidly” OOP, they have support for them but you can very easily do functional or imperative programming in either. out of those I believe Java is the only one that “rigid OOP” is a fair descriptor for, and I could be wrong on that as its not a language I’ve used (c# which I have and started as essentially microsoft Java has moved away from that style by incorporating numerous functional features from f#)

      • balsoft@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Fun fact, you can totally do functional programming in C++ too. Actually, it is in the top-right of the λ-cube, making it (in a specific sense) a more functional-programming language than Haskell or LISP :D

    • for_some_delta@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Object-oriented is a design pattern that the language can facilitate. Just because a language supports “is a” doesn’t mean “has a” does not exist. There are a lot of design patterns. Use the best language and design patterns for your team.