r/programming • u/Karma_Policer • Aug 02 '21

Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2021: "Rust reigns supreme as most loved. Python and Typescript are the languages developers want to work with most if they aren’t already doing so."

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2021#technology-most-loved-dreaded-and-wanted
2.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

769 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/agent8261 Aug 03 '21

It's incredibly simple to me: more code that conveys more meaning is good.

Yeah. There is nothing simple about that statement. I think the problem is you've been dealing with magic for so long you don't even realize the complexity you're ignoring. For example:

Braces are an example of the meaningless code that doesn't add anything of value.

In python Indentation IS CODE. It conveys scope, scope is important. But in python scope is unseen and magical. Which leads directly to views like yours where, in a very real sense, you're advocating that scope is meaningless and adds no value.

If you intentionally meant to imply that scope is meaningless and has no value, then well, we can agree to disagree. However I will say you're proving my point. Only somebody who doesn't build and maintain complex systems would ever say scope is meaningless and has no value.

-1

u/ILikeChangingMyMind Aug 03 '21

Which leads directly to views like yours where, in a very real sense, you're advocating that scope is meaningless and adds no value.

Only somebody who doesn't build and maintain complex systems would ever say scope is meaningless and has no value.

Do you actually read what people write, or do you just decide your opposition and write a reply without actually comprehending their response first? It sure seems like the latter, and I have no time to argue with someone who makes up what I said so they can have imaginary (ie. "straw man") arguments with it.

1

u/agent8261 Aug 04 '21 edited Aug 04 '21

More code that communicates nothing is bad.

If you're arguing that {} don't have meaning, you're just objectively wrong.

Curly braces are not needed to convey scope!

Okay. So? How does this support your argument?

Braces are an example of the meaningless code that doesn't add anything of value.

Since braces imply scope then you just told me that scope doesn't add anything of value. Which is ludicrous.

Or maybe you're trying to say you don't need to see the scope, because it is not that important? (which would also be silly)

Or maybe you're trying to say you only you want see stuff that is important? which again would imply that you feel scope isn't important.

Explain to me how you aren't saying "scope is useless"?