[lmedinas]

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses".

He is right on this one. Pretty much in every discussion about Programming Languages people write how good Rust is and complain about how bad C++ is but the reality is, C++ it's one of the most used languages in the world.

This quote could be a very harsh reply to Rust vs C++.

[epolanski]

I came to the conclusion that the inverse is true, people tend to love languages they don't use.

I used to love Lisp and Racket. But after writing some real programs with other people I realized the idea that every codebase has its own DSL and languages is actually stupid, doesn't scale and hard to maintain. Came to hate Haskell for the very same reason. Every Haskell programmer think he's more clever than others so he decides on 30/40 language extensions and you have something that simply isn't Haskell.

People should not program programming languages. There's use cases for this style of programming, but they aren't how general-purpose programming should look like.

[neilv]

> But after writing some real programs with other people I realized the idea that every codebase has its own DSL and languages is actually stupid, doesn't scale and hard to maintain.

Code bases can use DSLs. DSLs should used judiciously. For example, if you need an LALR parser, you'd probably wouldn't code it all by hand, and you'd probably use a DSL.

Just like we use libraries judiciously in many languages. (Well, we should, but casually pulling in a hundred libraries is more a Python/JS/Rust convention, than a Lisp family one.)

> Came to hate Haskell for the very same reason. Every Haskell programmer think he's more clever than others so he decides on 30/40 language extensions and you have something that simply isn't Haskell.

Is this a problem when Haskell is used professionally by software engineering teams? Or are you speaking of code by academics/students, who don't have a lot of experience on professional software engineering teams? Or by hobbyists, who are (rightly) indulging, and writing code however they want (more power to them), not writing how they have to at their day job?

[sgift]

No, it could be a very stupid reply to Rust vs C++ since people do write in Rust. Bigger programs get written in it all the time and - what a surprise - people who use it have things they are annoyed about, which is why it gets improved.

To me this is one of the most stupid things he's ever uttered on one hand and the most useful one on the other. Cause it can be used to remind people that there's always trade-offs, which is a good thing if a discussion gets a bit too heated and "I am right!" "No, I am right!", but it can also be used, and most often is, as a very shallow and arrogant dismissal - funny enough, especially by C++ zealots, IME - of someone trying to fix some things. As if trying to do things better is somehow an affront to their greatness.

[einpoklum]

FWIW, I think Bjarne and other C++ magnates have a plan for eating Rust's lunch by allowing for "safe"/"unsafe" within C++.

[ChrisSD]

If you think nobody complains about Rust then you haven't visited HN much recently ;). Heck, Bjarne Stroustrup himself has recently taken to complaining about Rust in papers and talks (though most recently he's taken to referring to it without naming names).

[tialaramex]

There's a noticeable difference between what you get from somebody like Barry Revzin, who understands C++ and Rust well and has very specific criiques, and from people like Bjarne or Herb who seem to be relying on superficial impressions at best.

[WiSaGaN]

I think you would have a very hard time defending the claim that 'nobody uses Rust,' given its current adoption trend in major technology companies like Microsoft and its integration in software projects like the Linux kernel.

[flykespice]

A language usage doesn't correlates with quality.

I wish people would stop spamming that quote on discussions here on this site as shallow dismissal everytime someone posts their critique.

[harry8]

You can already program. When you program a hobby/research project in the language you want to learn (better) you program /with/ the grain of the language. It's a nice experience.

Move over to implementing someone else's hard requirements where you have to make that happen, with time pressure - you find yourself going against the grain of the language by necessity and start describing the difficulties, sometimes colorfully.

People waxing lyrical about (this year haskell, rust for example) and who don't have a list of complaints are in the first category.

[hardware2win]

Ecosystem effect.