Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Предыдущая публикация
Kevin Riggle

The story goes that LISP made LISP programmers so individually productive so they rarely had to work together, so LISP software was capped around the output of a single developer. Whereas much worse languages like C and Perl were much less individually productive but built good affordances for

271
Kevin Riggle

collaboration among increasingly large teams, meaning their size and complexity could scale much further, and so they wound up winning most of the market share in the end

Обсуждение

1 прямых ответов · 2 сообщений

Kevin Riggle

(This also rhymes with the “Worse is Better” argument although if memory serves it’s not an exact match)

Ответ для Kevin Riggle
Raymond Neilson

There were at least a couple version of "worse is better" IIRC - one was that clever was harder to broadly understand (somewhat isomorphic to this); the other was that worse was faster and spread further