> At some point, you just have to shut up and make stuff.
It does sound like she's ferociously productive. It's also possible that she could be ten times as productive and that C++ is holding her back. The programmer credo is to work hard and work smart.
> I guess the current "shiny" thing is still more-or-less Ruby [with] Rails. Oh, I suppose there's also the whole node thing, in which you write things in Javascript and run them server-side with v8. She dismissed node right away (with no argument from me)
> I have no practical experience with them
Casual dismissal without evaluation of merits.
> it's all been linked to frothy people clamoring for the latest shiny thing. I've seen that pattern plenty of times before, and it's always annoying.
This is what I mean by hipsterism: Dismissal based on an excited fanbase.
> that somehow you would need to abdicate almost all of your code to modules where you just hope they work.
I had a problem with this sweeping generalization. If cgic isn't great, that's fine. Certainly you still have to evaluate your dependencies' merits.
> that creates an awful design where you give up main() to that program's code and then just wake up when it decides to call back to you
This did read like an indictment of callbacks as a whole, but I see now that she's not happy about libraries that hijack main() and have some secondary entry point. I concede that.
> It might not be wonderful, but you could build something relatively quickly, at least in theory.
High-level languages have proven productivity gains and known pitfalls. Here, she is hand-waving them away without giving them a chance.
> Better still, since I"m not chasing the shininess in that realm, I can spend those cycles on other things.
Trollish fallacy.
> she hasn't yet seen a newer "shinier" language that would make enough of a difference to warrant switching to it.
As far as I can tell she didn't even give them a fair chance. She dismissed them based on supposed hype and blubbiness.
It does sound like she's ferociously productive. It's also possible that she could be ten times as productive and that C++ is holding her back. The programmer credo is to work hard and work smart.
> I guess the current "shiny" thing is still more-or-less Ruby [with] Rails. Oh, I suppose there's also the whole node thing, in which you write things in Javascript and run them server-side with v8. She dismissed node right away (with no argument from me)
> I have no practical experience with them
Casual dismissal without evaluation of merits.
> it's all been linked to frothy people clamoring for the latest shiny thing. I've seen that pattern plenty of times before, and it's always annoying.
This is what I mean by hipsterism: Dismissal based on an excited fanbase.
> that somehow you would need to abdicate almost all of your code to modules where you just hope they work.
I had a problem with this sweeping generalization. If cgic isn't great, that's fine. Certainly you still have to evaluate your dependencies' merits.
> that creates an awful design where you give up main() to that program's code and then just wake up when it decides to call back to you
This did read like an indictment of callbacks as a whole, but I see now that she's not happy about libraries that hijack main() and have some secondary entry point. I concede that.
> It might not be wonderful, but you could build something relatively quickly, at least in theory.
High-level languages have proven productivity gains and known pitfalls. Here, she is hand-waving them away without giving them a chance.
> Better still, since I"m not chasing the shininess in that realm, I can spend those cycles on other things.
Trollish fallacy.
> she hasn't yet seen a newer "shinier" language that would make enough of a difference to warrant switching to it.
As far as I can tell she didn't even give them a fair chance. She dismissed them based on supposed hype and blubbiness.