This was an interesting reading piece for me for two main reasons: it challenged something I already knew, and (at the same time) it reaffirmed something I already knew. It also (just like the past assignment) briefly discussed a shared aspect between regular human languages and programming languages.
One thing it presented was that only their choice in technology what allowed them to 'make or break' their startup. Their reason for.. not failing. I am sure this is presented in this way to emphasize the advantage it gave to them but I had trouble buying the idea that only the language set them apart from all other startups. It made way more sense once it was delimited to the smaller competition for the best online-store-maker. I think that in our era the dominating languages don't have such vast differences in power. Differences that would allow for these kinds of stories.
To be completely honest, I like the language that I like because I've always felt it is powerful. I could never really explain why. That is what the assignment reassured in me. I feel like, when I'm typing, I can do almost anything without a lot of work. Even with that being true (like I mentioned earlier) I don't believe that the differences between the dominant languages today are big enough to really shape or restrict the way one thinks. Which brings me to my next point.
For me, the operations over data that computers do are more fundamental than any language itself. When we talk about some algorithm, we often do so in pseudocode instructions, that are more bound to the abstract idea of the data they are manipulating than to any machine or processor.
It is interesting to think that the same discussion can be held about human languages. ¿Do they define thought? Tough to answer. What was answered for me was the importance of teaching and discussing computing in a way that is implementation independent above even the language level, so that we can always programming languages as tools that are forever trying to match our thought and not the other way around.
One thing it presented was that only their choice in technology what allowed them to 'make or break' their startup. Their reason for.. not failing. I am sure this is presented in this way to emphasize the advantage it gave to them but I had trouble buying the idea that only the language set them apart from all other startups. It made way more sense once it was delimited to the smaller competition for the best online-store-maker. I think that in our era the dominating languages don't have such vast differences in power. Differences that would allow for these kinds of stories.
To be completely honest, I like the language that I like because I've always felt it is powerful. I could never really explain why. That is what the assignment reassured in me. I feel like, when I'm typing, I can do almost anything without a lot of work. Even with that being true (like I mentioned earlier) I don't believe that the differences between the dominant languages today are big enough to really shape or restrict the way one thinks. Which brings me to my next point.
For me, the operations over data that computers do are more fundamental than any language itself. When we talk about some algorithm, we often do so in pseudocode instructions, that are more bound to the abstract idea of the data they are manipulating than to any machine or processor.
It is interesting to think that the same discussion can be held about human languages. ¿Do they define thought? Tough to answer. What was answered for me was the importance of teaching and discussing computing in a way that is implementation independent above even the language level, so that we can always programming languages as tools that are forever trying to match our thought and not the other way around.