Post:

If you’re still shipping load‑bearing code in C, C++, Python, or vanilla JavaScript in 2025, you’re gambling with house money and calling it “experience.”

As systems scale, untyped or foot‑gun‑heavy languages don’t just get harder to work with—they hit a complexity cliff. Every new feature is another chance for a runtime type error or a memory bug to land in prod. Now layer LLM‑generated glue code on top of that. More code, more surface area, less anyone truly understands. In that world, “we’ll catch it in tests” is wishful thinking, not a strategy.

We don’t live in 1998 anymore. We have languages that:

  • Make whole classes of bugs unrepresentable (Rust, TypeScript)
  • Give you memory safety and concurrency sanity by default (Rust, Go)
  • Provide static structure that both humans and LLMs can lean on as guardrails, not red tape

At this point, choosing C/C++ for safety‑critical paths, or dynamic languages for the core of a large system, isn’t just “old school.” It’s negligence with better marketing.

Use Rust, Go, or TypeScript for anything that actually matters. Use Python/JS at the edges, for scripts and prototypes.

For production, load‑bearing paths in 2025 and beyond, anything else is you saying, out loud:

“I’m okay with avoidable runtime failures and undefined behavior in my critical systems.”

Are you?

Comment:

Nonsense. If your code has reached the point of unmaintainable complexity, then blame the author, not the language.

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
    5·
    5 小时前

    You write your typescript code to expect a given type but at the end of the day it’s JavaScript with a type checking compiler so when “'any” gets in through a library or interface somewhere you just get a random “undefined” somewhere when you try to perform an operation with it because it’s just JavaScript at the end of the day

    • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      2·
      3 小时前

      What you’re describing is not really an ‘any’ type in the code but garbage data. No language is going to save you if you read a file expecting a character but it’s actually an int.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        1·
        31 分钟前

        Think of it like Haskell’s cast from the Typeable class.

        Yes, if somebody sends random stuff, you’ll have to handle a failure, or do the equivalent of returning undefined, what is way easier than properly handling it in TS. What you do from there is up to you.