Article makes a false premise: that speed of writing the first version is important.
Much more time is spent maintaining software than writing the first version. Some poor sob is going to have to go and fix all those "silly" mistakes that were made and the bugs they caused (but of course, as we all know, they would have been avoided if the programmer had just been a better programmer). Save yourself (and us) the bother. Please use languages that stop you from shooting yourself in the foot.
(Not that rust will avoid bugs, but it seems to catch a lot of stupid "mistakes" before compile time. We're all humans and make mistakes, please accept that fact before inflicting software on us.)
>Article makes a false premise: that speed of writing the first version is important.
In my experience, project managers care more about how long it's going to take to build than about how maintainable it is. It's literally always the first question they ask:
"How long do you think this will take you?"
I don't believe I've ever heard anyone in management ask, "How maintainable will this be?" I'll ask around. I bet none of my peers have gotten that question either.
Except that normally a new feature does not involve creating a new system. Technical debt significantly impacts velocity of implementing new features in the future.
Much more time is spent maintaining software than writing the first version. Some poor sob is going to have to go and fix all those "silly" mistakes that were made and the bugs they caused (but of course, as we all know, they would have been avoided if the programmer had just been a better programmer). Save yourself (and us) the bother. Please use languages that stop you from shooting yourself in the foot.
(Not that rust will avoid bugs, but it seems to catch a lot of stupid "mistakes" before compile time. We're all humans and make mistakes, please accept that fact before inflicting software on us.)