Change is fine as long as it doesn't devolve a language into unreadable symbol soup. The adoption of STL into C++, a non-performant library, was the start of that downhill spiral.
Attempting to attack a person's character is not a good way to start a positive discussion:
Do you ever wonder if at some point in the last few decades you became very resistant to change?
That's a structured personal attack on someone else. Your other replies came across to me as being similar in nature. This is Dev and I try (but don't always succeed - hey, I'm human too) to stay away from obviously problematic comments like that. Again, I have no ill will toward you and everyone's different, so no harm done.
At no point in this discussion, including my original post, have I attempted to attack anyone nor their language preference (if such is construed, I apologize) nor expressly said that developing software in C or C++ is bad/terrible but rather focused entirely on providing an analysis of why PRs likely take longer in some languages - aka providing possible context to various points brought up in the podcast. I believe that there's nothing wrong with any language that anyone chooses to use as long as it gets the job done. Obviously, lots of things get done every day in every single compiled and scripting language ever made and, when near-the-metal performance matters, system languages like C and C++ are ideal.
I just said what I do and was trying to provide a possible context to others who might read the post to maybe better understand the results from the podcast. The podcast authors seemed surprised at some of the results, but to me the results made sense and I was sharing why. I may have come on perhaps a bit strongly in spots (saying "modern hot garbage" WAS excessive) that obviously riled you up (sorry about that!) but I was writing my commentary as I listened to the podcast and I do have opinions. If everyone kept their opinions and insights and ideas to themselves, healthy debates would never happen and nothing would ever get done. I'm glad people have opinions/ideas and even constructive criticism. That's how we progress and learn together as a society. If there's anything I need to change about myself, it is that I probably should avoid phrases like "modern hot garbage" that will elicit a negative reaction. A better initial response would have been, "Using the phrase 'modern hot garbage' seems a bit excessive to me and some people might feel personally attacked/offended. I'd love to hear why you said that. Perhaps I can provide some answers to any issues you have with the C++ language." I think that would have saved a whole lot of back and forth.
I do think keywords vs. symbols should be a concern when designing a language. Finding a good balance between keywords vs. symbols has always been tricky. Keywords are, for the most part, searchable on search engines while symbols generally are not. Symbols, on the other hand, take less time to type in, occupy fewer bytes, and are easier for parsers to process for syntax correctness. Some languages are very keyword heavy (e.g. COBOL) while others are very symbol heavy (e.g. APL). People today write code in both of those languages. Are those languages terrible/bad? If it gets the job done, no one should care. The only downside is that PRs might take a bit longer to resolve in languages that live closer to either end of the spectrum. That's just good information to know up front but shouldn't stop anyone from using any given language and that was my main personal takeaway from this podcast.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Change is fine as long as it doesn't devolve a language into unreadable symbol soup. The adoption of STL into C++, a non-performant library, was the start of that downhill spiral.
PHP is excellent for CLI scripting.
Not ego but experience.
I'm going to continue developing software as I see fit. I'm well respected among my peers. Let's keep Dev upbeat. Thanks!
Attempting to attack a person's character is not a good way to start a positive discussion:
That's a structured personal attack on someone else. Your other replies came across to me as being similar in nature. This is Dev and I try (but don't always succeed - hey, I'm human too) to stay away from obviously problematic comments like that. Again, I have no ill will toward you and everyone's different, so no harm done.
At no point in this discussion, including my original post, have I attempted to attack anyone nor their language preference (if such is construed, I apologize) nor expressly said that developing software in C or C++ is bad/terrible but rather focused entirely on providing an analysis of why PRs likely take longer in some languages - aka providing possible context to various points brought up in the podcast. I believe that there's nothing wrong with any language that anyone chooses to use as long as it gets the job done. Obviously, lots of things get done every day in every single compiled and scripting language ever made and, when near-the-metal performance matters, system languages like C and C++ are ideal.
I just said what I do and was trying to provide a possible context to others who might read the post to maybe better understand the results from the podcast. The podcast authors seemed surprised at some of the results, but to me the results made sense and I was sharing why. I may have come on perhaps a bit strongly in spots (saying "modern hot garbage" WAS excessive) that obviously riled you up (sorry about that!) but I was writing my commentary as I listened to the podcast and I do have opinions. If everyone kept their opinions and insights and ideas to themselves, healthy debates would never happen and nothing would ever get done. I'm glad people have opinions/ideas and even constructive criticism. That's how we progress and learn together as a society. If there's anything I need to change about myself, it is that I probably should avoid phrases like "modern hot garbage" that will elicit a negative reaction. A better initial response would have been, "Using the phrase 'modern hot garbage' seems a bit excessive to me and some people might feel personally attacked/offended. I'd love to hear why you said that. Perhaps I can provide some answers to any issues you have with the C++ language." I think that would have saved a whole lot of back and forth.
I do think keywords vs. symbols should be a concern when designing a language. Finding a good balance between keywords vs. symbols has always been tricky. Keywords are, for the most part, searchable on search engines while symbols generally are not. Symbols, on the other hand, take less time to type in, occupy fewer bytes, and are easier for parsers to process for syntax correctness. Some languages are very keyword heavy (e.g. COBOL) while others are very symbol heavy (e.g. APL). People today write code in both of those languages. Are those languages terrible/bad? If it gets the job done, no one should care. The only downside is that PRs might take a bit longer to resolve in languages that live closer to either end of the spectrum. That's just good information to know up front but shouldn't stop anyone from using any given language and that was my main personal takeaway from this podcast.