The Costs of Programming Language Fragmentation
I also disagree with the premise of this article, and I do not think the argument presented here is compelling at all. The motivations that spur people to do work are complex and diverse, and this article seems to pretend otherwise. For example:<p>&gt; but it&#x27;s common for new languages to trigger reimplementation of, e.g., container data structures, HTTP clients, and random number generators. If the new language did not exist, that effort could have been spent on improving existing libraries or some other useful endeavour.<p>Yes, it <i>could</i> have, but would it? Speaking as someone who has done some of this reimplementation work in a newer language, I can unequivocally say that it would not in my case. I&#x27;m just one data point, but I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;m unusual. There is an aspect of greenfield development that is appealing to me. It is a somewhat unique opportunity to execute a vision with a lot of freedom. There is also the benefit of new forms of expression that new tools give you. I&#x27;m painting with broad strokes here, but I&#x27;m generally a believer in the idea that tools themselves can both limit and empower the expression of ideas.<p>If it weren&#x27;t for the new language, I surely would have done something else with my time. I don&#x27;t know what it would be, but I know it would not be trying to expend the social capital required to make small incremental improvements to existing software using tools that I find too limited. As another commenter mentioned, I might have just watched more Netflix.