|
ok since nobody else seems to want it: haskell supremacy snype
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
hackbunny posted:real programmers snipe page 1024
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:real programmers snipe page 1024
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
How go programmers are called gophers and not gomos? This question just been eating away at me lately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end. Very long read for a web page. I'm not a particular fan of hurrr durr OO sucks Functional owns, particularly this article going "here's why OO sucks" and then boasting functional with far fewer arguments to back it up other than saying "functional doesn't gently caress up like OO", but I still found it to be a decent (see: entertaining) read. Some fun quotes: quote:but I’ll point out, you could restrict yourself to using PHP, and only use those features that were available in PHP4, back in 2004, and then add in one modern ingredient, for instance, maybe integration with ZeroMQ, and with that you would be able to achieve something closer to Alan Kay’s ideal than what most of the modern, bloated OOP frameworks give us. quote:Why do we want “data hiding”? We want it because we want protection from unexpected changes to state, and OOP encapsulation rarely gives us this — we have to combine this kind of encapsulation with other tools, such as locks, to achieve the goal. This suggests weakness in the way that OOP enables data hiding. [...] Non-OOP languages also give us the same thing. quote:It is absolutely tragic that this advice needs to be given. Back in the 1960s, OOP introduced the concept of inheritance, and yet now we know OOP is a terrible way to implement inheritance. And yet, we often want inheritance, not composition. quote:Erlang is a work of genius and I feel some frustration that it does not get more attention.  quote:And there is an explicitly political idea that drove OOP to its peak in the 1990s: the idea of outsourcing. The idea of outsourcing software development rested on some assumptions about how software development should work, in particular the idea of the “genius” architect, backed by an army of morons who act as secretaries, taking dictation. OOP was the software equivalent of a trend that became common in manufacturing during the 1980s: design should stay in the USA while actual production should be sent to a 3rd World country. Working with UML diagrams, writing code could be reduced to mere grunt work, whereas the design of software could be handled by visionaries, possessed with epic imaginations, who could specify an OO hierarchy which could then be sent to India for a vast team to actually type out. OTOH, it falls victim to calling into the Blub programmer, despising a few people and treating them like morons and whatnot, being reminiscent of your more usual lisp advocacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
So apparently Ruby is dying http://news.dice.com/2014/10/09/5-programming-languages-marked-for-death/ praise allah
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:So apparently Ruby is dying http://news.dice.com/2014/10/09/5-programming-languages-marked-for-death/ Yeah sorry but this is completely wrong. There are a million Rails 2/3 applications out there that will need maintaining because companies aren't going to pay for complete rewrites. If anything it's just going to become the Java of plangs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:So apparently Ruby is dying http://news.dice.com/2014/10/09/5-programming-languages-marked-for-death/ I can't find Java on that list. Calling BS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
triple sulk posted:Java of plangs. mods
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
triple sulk posted:Yeah sorry but this is completely wrong. There are a million Rails 2/3 applications out there that will need maintaining because companies aren't going to pay for complete rewrites. If anything it's just going to become the Java of plangs. Don't crap on my dreams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
triple sulk posted:Yeah sorry but this is completely wrong. There are a million Rails 2/3 applications out there that will need maintaining because companies aren't going to pay for complete rewrites. If anything it's just going to become the Java of plangs. i'm sure it'll linger for a while but RoR doesn't have the marketshare necessary for long-term COBOL type eternal obsolescence. this is however a fantastic reason why PHP is going to be with us for decades, at least. (note the absence of PHP from that list)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:So apparently Ruby is dying http://news.dice.com/2014/10/09/5-programming-languages-marked-for-death/ Microsoft’s long love of the BASIC programming language extends all the way back to 1991,
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
i wonder if he knows there were, in fact, computers before 1991.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
macros are terrible, and not having macros is one of the best things about c#/java locking macros behind a compiler flag in rust is the next best thing they could do after ripping the whole thing out. I still think they should do the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
speaking of rust, is it possible to run the borrow checker/lifetime analysis separately from the compiler? i think an ide that could show you (via syntax highlighting?) live/about to drop vars would be really useful
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end. Very long read for a web page. so i skimmmed the first half and then the bottom bit of this so sorry im not sorry if i missed something important, but the crux of his argument seems: 1) all these strengths of OOP are strengths of any good paradigm which is true. 2) OOP isnt as strong at these things as others which is sometimes true and sometimes not. (i dont get why he thinks dispatching on a function is unattainable in oop langs for example) 3) that we actually want inheritance but functional rulz and oop droolz. no i will not explain why i actually want a type hierarchy of prices descending from numbers. 4) functional doesnt need design patterns (lol get the gently caress out) this seems like a dude who has been burned by OOP zealots who decided that a particular book was the hand of God while simultaneously never having the opportunity to use a functional language in production. also i think he thinks a design pattern is defined as something exists in a book called Design Patterns by a group of old white men who use a racially insensitive name. also i still do not get why he really, really wants a tall type hierarchy. why is transaction metric a child of number? what happens when transaction metrics are not always numeric?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
you really think "gang of four" is racially insensitive? wow. is "triumvirate" offensive to italians in your universe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Blotto Skorzany posted:you really think "gang of four" is racially insensitive? wow. is "triumvirate" offensive to italians in your universe? culturally? sure, lets use the same name as a group of people implicated in one of the worst events in modern chinese history. Effective Java by Shutzstaffel Clean Code by Gestapo
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Vanadium posted:is there any non-lisp with a good macro system that i can rub the rust people's heads in just use a lisp dialect other languages' macro systems are bad because other languages syntax rules are too complicated. lisp macros are comprehensible specifically because lisp syntaxes tend to be so simple
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
FamDav posted:culturally? sure, lets use the same name as a group of people implicated in one of the worst events in modern chinese history. they picked the name because they weren't sure whether design patterns constituted a great leap forward in software design or the final solution to the oop problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
FamDav posted:so i skimmmed the first half and then the bottom bit of this so sorry im not sorry if i missed something important, but the crux of his argument seems: That's roughly it. For 2) he doesn't think it's impossible (CLOS does it and he mentions so), he's just saying most OO languages out there in production use don't do it nor encourage it. Therefore most OO out there is not good at it, and it's tied to the No True Scotsman fallacy in that yes people can argue "but it's possible, you're just not using the right OO", but by that virtue, nobody (but CLOS users and a few others) are using proper OO. The type hierarchy for 3) is probably to be able to say, for example, that while minutes and seconds can both be subsets of integers, they do not represent the same type. An operation on integers should work on minutes, and it should work in seconds, but seconds and integers shouldn't be mixed together, nor should they necessarily share the same set of functions to operate on them. The same way, the data type that represents the usual car analogy can represent the same abstract concept or type (a car and a bike and a truck are all vehicles that go on a road), but they don't have the same implementation nor should necessarily share code and representation. The traditional OO inheritance ties behavior, interface, and type checking together. This lead to a lot of confusion and trends about whether inheritance or composability is the most important, and whether this should be done via IoC, mixins, or traits. In most functional languages, the type hierarchy and behavior are already separated and don't require a special discipline nor have the downside of some approaches (say mixins polluting namespaces).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Blotto Skorzany posted:they picked the name because they weren't sure whether design patterns constituted a great leap forward in software design or the final solution to the oop problem. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
FamDav posted:culturally? sure, lets use the same name as a group of people implicated in one of the worst events in modern chinese history. VB.NET by Microsoft's Unit 731
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Object Oriented Programming is an expensive disaster which must end. Very long read for a web page. if someone writes a functional language that's not retarded unreadable garbage maybe i'll use it
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:if someone writes a functional language that's not retarded unreadable garbage maybe i'll use it scala has a somewhat java-like syntax it is at least not as weird as f# or haskell
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
FamDav posted:culturally? sure, lets use the same name as a group of people implicated in one of the worst events in modern chinese history. surely there have to be multiple juntae out there in the programming world
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
I tried using functional programming once and all it did was make an unmanageable mess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
also you can tell when someone is a loving moron because they don't understand soap or why ws-* exists. also lol he doesn't think http is a transport
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I thought the gang of four were the guys who beat up Rodney King.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Blotto Skorzany posted:they picked the name because they weren't sure whether design patterns constituted a great leap forward in software design or the final solution to the oop problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:also you can tell when someone is a loving moron because they don't understand soap or why ws-* exists. also lol he doesn't think http is a transport HTTP would be layers 5-6-7 in the OSI layer if that thing had any relevance in the world, under its usage with browsers and whatnot. TCP would be the transport level. SOAP makes HTTP go back down to 4 because it uses it strictly as a tunnel, and then re-adds its own logic on top regarding presentation and application-level logic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
FamDav posted:never having the opportunity to use a functional language in production. ding ding ding
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:I tried using functional programming once and all it did was make an unmanageable mess. shagger you advocate functional programming all the loving time, you just like it embedded in C#
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:HTTP would be layers 5-6-7 in the OSI layer if that thing had any relevance in the world, under its usage with browsers and whatnot. TCP would be the transport level. SOAP makes HTTP go back down to 4 because it uses it strictly as a tunnel, and then re-adds its own logic on top regarding presentation and application-level logic. http doesn't define session presentation or application. it is a transport mechanism and its the content and consumers (aka browsers) that are 5-6-7 AlsoD posted:shagger you advocate functional programming all the loving time, you just like it embedded in C# only really w/ anonymous delegates which is the bare minimum
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:http doesn't define session presentation or application. it is a transport mechanism and its the content and consumers (aka browsers) that are 5-6-7 In practice, as far as I get, IP goes into layer 3, TCP and UDP go in layer 4, and 5-6-7 are all weird and can be considered more or less overlapping in that DNS, SSL/TLS can be considered to be 5, but there's bleeding into 6-7 for stuff like FTP, HTTP, IRC, Telnet, whatever. Adding to SOAP in there does mean that the logic that HTTP covers for presentation doesn't push down HTTP to the transport level (and is suddenly right there with TCP, or TCP goes down to network?), it just means you pack more poo poo into 5-6-7 as you use HTTP to tunnel through poo poo. But the OSI model in the top layers is all weird and lovely anyway. I know books like The TCP/IP Guide just go "gently caress it" and calls 5 "Application" and shoves all the poo poo above UDP/TCP/SCTP in there and the model ends there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
brb rewriting hat website in F# on Flat Tires
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
he's totally right about one thing: state is the enemy "transform and propagate" > "mutate and store" Edit: does Content-Disposition: really fit into something that's a transport?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:he's totally right about one thing: state is the enemy this. everything else is bullshit posturing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:ding ding ding fyi my argument is that he would run into similar types of issues because we still haven't adequately cracked the "multiple people working on a large codebase" nut yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:he's totally right about one thing: state is the enemy
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:53
|
|