>>51097937>"I don't care if the compiler is complex because I'm not the one maintaining it" is not an argument.yes it is. the complexity gives me useful features, like type inference, and costs me nothing. it's rational for me to desire this
>"Making things simpler than the current crop of technologies is a waste because the current crop is sufficient" is not an argument either.sometimes good solutions are more complex than bad ones. djikstra's algorithm is more complex than floyd warshall. fibonacci'd djikstra's algorithm is more complex than djikstra's. do you always use the simpler algorithm, even if it's suboptimal? why, when implementations already exist?
>"Wasting additional resources on a problem that can be solved more simply is fine because we are in glutinous supply of programmers" is not an argument either.the resources are not wasted -- people use type inference -- why would you not want to fully utilize the supply of programmers?
do you think programmers could be working on more valuable projects than compilers? because i don't. i think compilers are obviously one of the most valuable projects that a programmer can work on, because it benefits many other programmers, and lots of software. the economy is fairly straightforward
you are perceiving a crisis where there is none. it is not even clearly utopian to imagine a world with simpler compilers. that might just be a world with shitty compilers
