that I will succeed in making a spreadsheet editor that is better then excel (not hard) and will be widely use by the majority of people (hard). I want to destroy excel after the all the time I've had to endure vba or deal with its stupid intricacies . im bitter. and I hate excel
grep is simple to use from a simple command. Setting up a Java server and maintaining it is quite a different challenge then running a command with a few parameters. I wouldn't use it because if it goes down, fuck. If I need to extend it or decide to change something in there, fuck. I would want to use something that is easier for me to fix and maintain or my coworkers to fix/maintain, then have a product built from multiple languages that require too many different types of people to keep it running.
I wasn't suggesting you do something that would place a large burden on your coworkers, but there is a point where the usefulness of existing software is greater than any potential churn of learning it's running environment.
Suppose you were a ruby developer and you want to create a fully scalable, highly available JSON document store that you can easily index, store, and backup/rotate, and a solution like this wasn't available in your language. Would you create your own database to store the documents, implement your own consensus algorithms and searching algorithms like TL-DF?
Or would you just learn how to use elasticsearch and incur the cost of running it?
Yup. It goes far beyond the effort taken to run it. Straight out of the preface of Site Reliability Engineering, a book written by Google SREs, "estimates 40-90% of the total costs of a system are incurred after birth".
Edit: This was meant to go under one of your post's child comments, and hopefully isn't too out of context misplaced here.
I agree that a language doesn't define you but what I wonder if a person's favorite language has some correlation to certain personality traits. I would be lieing if I didn't say I get more enjoyment from some languages where other people don't. Perl vs Python for example, pythons core values are to try and make it only one way to achieve something, whereas Perl tries to give you multiple ways to achieve something. I would guess that Perl may appeal more to artistic people and Python would appeal to more engineering type of people. This isn't a claim, more just something I think would be interesting to investigate.
Ok, I write every day in Rust and JavaScript (and not just jumping monkey in JS, but a lot of code). They are almost orthogonal languages. Will it fit your theory? :)
Sorry for long reply. No, I prefer Rust, but right now it's impossible to use Rust on frontend. I also know there are people who love Python, Scala, Nim, D, Ocaml and I don't think they are wrong - it's just languages with different flavours and there are people with other preferences, so it's awesome to have alternatives. They are not better or worse than me if they use other languages, I'm more than sure about it. But when we talk about PHP, Go, Perl - yes, I think people could make better choice.
That's actually an interesting philosophical question. I find the idea of "more than one way" extremely unappealing, so it's not particularly shocking that Python is my "ideal" language. To me it's either useless (all options have the same efficiency) or it's bad (one option is the most efficient). So it seems senseless.
And artistic is the last word I'd use to describe myself.
I understand your point of view, I guess I'm more bothered by how it seems to me that people are quickly to yell clickbait and just that which if anything could bring more attention to the article. I almost feel likes it's yelling "Don't look!", which is going to make me look.
And that's the type of reaction I would encourage. Yes you stop clicking on a lot of articles, but you're less likely to waste your time. I find that instead of going to around yelling clickbait, just ignore it, or at least make your time useful and either build something from the article or explain why it's bad so others could learn to ignore more stuff that source
Why do you say Lua is better designed? And are you comparing classic JS or ES6 JS? I like Lua but there are some things that just annoy me like indexing an array with 1, smaller standard library, etc. I find JS implementation of inheritance, objects, and prototyping better than Lua due to its simplicity.
1. Indexing an array with 1 is unfortunate but not a bad design decision in a vacuum, eg for i=1,#size is a very easy to understand loop over valid array indexes. I'll agree that it causes cognitive load in practice.
2. JS has a somewhat broken notion of objects and Lua's implementation is far cleaner while being as powerful. How do you use a JavaScript object as a hashmap? The default try is a potential security hole.
If I was developing a spreadsheet in the browser I would use the lowest level abstraction possible for performance (which is what they're doing since the jQuery is just a wrapper). When you're potentially managing tens of thousands of rows of cells no matter what you use its going to start to chug and solutions using abstraction on top of abstraction on top of abstraction will start to chug a whole lot quicker than vanilla JS.
Disagree. With the right abstractions (like a "virtualized" table such as react-virtualized https://bvaughn.github.io/react-virtualized/) you won't ever need to render tens of thousands of cells simultaneously.
But feel free to implement your own virtualized table if you really don't want "abstraction on top of abstraction on top of abstraction"
