I don't like unnecessary layers. Interpreted languages waste silicon and energy. I've heard startups justify using Ruby or PHP by saying "servers are cheap", which is just a bad engineering mindset.
Instead of building PHP apps on a PHP platform built in Go, people should just build apps in Go. Or in C++, D, Nim, F#, C#, or even Java 8 or 10 with that new AOT compiler. (I think F# and C# can also be compiled in advance with CoreRT, but even if they can't, they're a huge upgrade over any interpreted language.)
I would mention Rust except that it's terrible. All popular programming languages in our timeline are bad, and deter millions of smart people from the profession. But Rust is extraordinarily bad and should be replaced.
> I've heard startups justify using Ruby or PHP by saying "servers are cheap", which is just a bad engineering mindset.
But a sensible startup mindset. Use whatever setup allows you to get things up and running the quickest. By the time you run into scaling problems brought about by a choice to program in Ruby (if you ever do) you'll have a viable product, and can transition pieces away as you see fit.
> All popular programming languages in our timeline are bad
Consider the possibility that you consider all of the popular languages bad because there is something about "bad" languages which causes them to become popular. For example, I notice that all of the examples of "bad" languages are ones which let you push out buggy software that is "good enough".
Instead of building PHP apps on a PHP platform built in Go, people should just build apps in Go. Or in C++, D, Nim, F#, C#, or even Java 8 or 10 with that new AOT compiler. (I think F# and C# can also be compiled in advance with CoreRT, but even if they can't, they're a huge upgrade over any interpreted language.)
I would mention Rust except that it's terrible. All popular programming languages in our timeline are bad, and deter millions of smart people from the profession. But Rust is extraordinarily bad and should be replaced.