> Go is not an easy language, it is a simple language, those 2 things are not the same.
This distinction is fundamental to any sort of design, but is unfortunately lost on a lot of people (especially developers, in my experience). Easy and simple are near-universally conflated.
> I do not believe in a universal language that is both easy for beginners while being concise for advanced users.
Exactly. I really want some languages to be more intuitive and easy to pick up for non-programmers. The average person (whatever that means) does not have the first clue about the machines that run so many parts of their lives.
At the same time, such a language would likely be a bad fit for most professional software development. That hardly means it's without value.
I know languages like that exist, but they're often aimed at absolute beginners and are treated like toys. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground or "transition languages".
Insert joke about how $LANGUAGE_YOU_DISLIKE is a toy.
This distinction is fundamental to any sort of design, but is unfortunately lost on a lot of people (especially developers, in my experience). Easy and simple are near-universally conflated.
> I do not believe in a universal language that is both easy for beginners while being concise for advanced users.
Exactly. I really want some languages to be more intuitive and easy to pick up for non-programmers. The average person (whatever that means) does not have the first clue about the machines that run so many parts of their lives.
At the same time, such a language would likely be a bad fit for most professional software development. That hardly means it's without value.
I know languages like that exist, but they're often aimed at absolute beginners and are treated like toys. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground or "transition languages".
Insert joke about how $LANGUAGE_YOU_DISLIKE is a toy.