As an academic/industrial researcher* in the programming languages community, I agree with Matt. And who do you think makes up a vast majority of Google's PhDs anyways? That's right, PL researchers who want to do do real work and solve real problems (e.g. Jeff Dean).
> The only reason that "real software developers" don't benefit is that they aren't willing to learn them.
This is a stupid response: its like saying, "users are just stupid, fix the users, not the device!" We are simply not willing to listen to what their real problems are. We aren't solving their problems, so why should real developers care about us?
> And it is not--and should not be--the responsibility of the PL theory community to get the average programmer up to date.
Does the PL theory community actually cared about programmers? There isn't much empathy on both sides.
> Also, if I may make an observation: it seems his thoughts on PL design broadly reflect the philosophy of Google in general.
If you are going to attack something on hackernews, please give at least a few details.
> I personally think that this almost borders on anti-intellectualism: they seem to imply that something created by ivory-tower academics with an understanding of math cannot possibly be useful in the real world; only real software engineers™ make practical tools.
Why is this so weird? You know, the ivory tower's output is super cutting edge research + people. They aren't supposed to be making practical tools.
* disclaimer: I don't work for Google, but I do work for Microsoft.
> The only reason that "real software developers" don't benefit is that they aren't willing to learn them.
This is a stupid response: its like saying, "users are just stupid, fix the users, not the device!" We are simply not willing to listen to what their real problems are. We aren't solving their problems, so why should real developers care about us?
> And it is not--and should not be--the responsibility of the PL theory community to get the average programmer up to date.
Does the PL theory community actually cared about programmers? There isn't much empathy on both sides.
> Also, if I may make an observation: it seems his thoughts on PL design broadly reflect the philosophy of Google in general.
If you are going to attack something on hackernews, please give at least a few details.
> I personally think that this almost borders on anti-intellectualism: they seem to imply that something created by ivory-tower academics with an understanding of math cannot possibly be useful in the real world; only real software engineers™ make practical tools.
Why is this so weird? You know, the ivory tower's output is super cutting edge research + people. They aren't supposed to be making practical tools.
* disclaimer: I don't work for Google, but I do work for Microsoft.