>>9Not every module needs to be recompiled every time you change one line of source code.
Nested abstractions can be slow to compile regardless, and larger codebases contain more of them. Splitting code into small modules is an anti-pattern due compiler deficiency(in parsing these nested abstractions) which forces the programmer to follow a map of dependencies for every module instead of working with larger files. i.e. moving the work to the programmer, complicating large projects. Code should be modularized within files as components, not separate files(e.g. having 1000 files per 1000 functions to avoid slow compile).
|It's an excellent feature:
No. A language should be easy to learn. Limiting your audience is limiting industry support and small userbases have never proved themselves influential. You would end up with a small niche language, with very little new users. The experienced users of the language would not be as loyal as you think and would easily jump ship to greener pastures if alternatives are seen. In the end it would either fade into obscurity or become assimilated into a larger language which has less of a learning curve.
Only if you're a newfag or a loser.
Reusable components can of course be created from any hack or one-liner, given enough time. It just won't be the same code, at best it could be a prototype for a real component or module. Clever one-liners by themselves are just demos. If a complete component alternative exists, most programmers would use it instead of cryptic, unreliable or obscure "one-liner".
Because your cubicle farm needs lots of cheap disposable coders?
No. The world need competent programmers, there is shift towards mass computing controlling our civilization. If the tools are unreliable and the programmers remain incompetent we would stay within a quagmire of insecure, slow and buggy software forever. No magical genius team can handle the scale and breadth of software developed today and maintain it by themselves. Languages ill-suited for learning, cripple their proliferation permanently and deny their chance at industry and academia adoption, making them an unlikely target for future programmers.
The influence of the language depends on adoption:
Literature and compilers, libraries,frameworks,hardware manufacturers support,websites, modules all become insignificant if the userbase doesn't materialize due learning curves. Its futile to force the language on the audience and its equally futile to expect all elite programmers switch to it.