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.
That’s only article-worthy because it is a rare occurrence and an increasingly controversial opinion. And even that maintainer didn’t abandon TS completely—he said that would be “daft”—he just moved to types via JSDoc which is run through the TS compiler, as well as to
.d.tsfiles.Congratulations, you read the headline.
But “just” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It is literally why he moved.
Learn how to have a conversation
You didn’t even bother to argue my point. You repeated the headline of the article that I send you. Are you sure that I need to learn that?
I would have given you a proper response if your response would have been. Calling something “controversial” is literally saying that there are conflicting opinions on the matter, which means it is NOT no brainer.
Your point was “some people don’t think it’s a no-brainer,” which I addressed, and then you whipped out that line. I’ve been around long enough to know what that means: that your replies would be inflammatory garbage from then on. Learn how to interact with people online in a civil way and maybe you’ll actually be able to maintain a conversation long enough for it to be constructive
I just explained to you how your own response confirms my point but be upset over someone making fun of you for stating the headline of their reference as some interesting insight.