pajuc

Why is there no light to be shed?

This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. And a straight simple answer might be that no, they didn't. Or not initially but later it was too late. Or here are the circumstances in leadership, historical contexts that led to it and we find those in other projects as well.

That would be interesting to hear.

What's the difference between "choosing pretty syntax over speed" and "start with syntax without considering speed"?

So they didn't focus actively on good error messages and fast compile times when designing a new language?

It's really hard for me to read past Lattner's quote. "Beautiful minimal syntax" vs "really bad compile times" and "awful error messages".

I know it's not helpful to judge in hindsight, lots of smart people, etc.

But why on earth would you make this decision for a language aimed at app developers? How is this not a design failure?

If I read this article correctly, it would have been an unacceptable decision to make users write setThreatLevel(ThreatLevel.midnight) in order to have great compile times and error messages.

Can someone shed some light on this to make it appear less stupid? Because I'm sure there must be something less stupid going on.

Great short read on a concept we can find in many places, including software engineering or even UX design in general.

Could you explain what you see in more detail? I don't quite understand what you mean and I'd like to fix it.

Generally, scaling is based on the shorter edge of the frame. The edge length of the largest square is about 30% of that. All other squares follow in a similar fashion.