A well written blog post that makes many valid points but comes with a wrong assumption: that making a language creativity-friendly is an absolutely desirable trait.
It's a desirable trait for my personal projects, where I may use Haskell, Ruby, Ocaml, Racket or something more exotic.
At work, I'd rather use languages that are boring, with well defined and uncreative patterns and practices. Professionally I expect to not be surprised often and I want the smallest group cognitive load possible.
Languages that breed too much creativity tend to have a rather short list of killer software (that kind of software that makes it worth learn a specific programming language).
I wonder if Zed started using, or went back to, Perl after getting so worked up about the 2 -> 3 transition. (From what I can tell, he's still complaining about it, and still wrong in many of those complaints, and makes unsubstantiated claims in others.)
It's a desirable trait for my personal projects, where I may use Haskell, Ruby, Ocaml, Racket or something more exotic.
At work, I'd rather use languages that are boring, with well defined and uncreative patterns and practices. Professionally I expect to not be surprised often and I want the smallest group cognitive load possible.
Languages that breed too much creativity tend to have a rather short list of killer software (that kind of software that makes it worth learn a specific programming language).