|
i read everything above "Meet Lagom" and I have no idea what it is: https://www.lightbend.com/lagom and the words i understood, i didn't like
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
prefect posted:what does it mean when a programming language is described as "expressive"? it means "delightful"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
prefect posted:what does it mean when a programming language is described as "expressive"? "my personal use cases require fewer key presses"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Wheany posted:i read everything above "Meet Lagom" and I have no idea what it is: https://www.lightbend.com/lagom looking at it, Lagom looks like a service framework that's integrated with akka for orchestration and communication. you can go from a monolith process (run akka with all operations on the same jvm) to process isolation (run multiple jvms on the same box) to full on distributed (jvms in different area codes) in a flexible and gradual way. I'd be interested in seeing what their benchmarks are for running very large distributed akka clusters, but I don't think their customer base even needs very large.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
FamDav posted:you can go from a monolith process (run akka with all operations on the same jvm) to process isolation (run multiple jvms on the same box) to full on distributed (jvms in different area codes) in a flexible and gradual way. if that's what it does, maybe they should say that on the front page like a boss
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
is it like a framework for migrating bad legacy enterprise code to a more modern architecture? like percona but for applications?? because that seems like a good idea but also impossible
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:is it like a framework for migrating bad legacy enterprise code to a more modern architecture? IMO it's probably difficult in most because of the way enterprise code integrates with other business processes. The processes are probably bad but might be very hard to change. And if you're not proposing changing any functionality then why bother? (Cost and reliability perhaps but replacing exisitng, functional code is also risky)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Wheany posted:if that's what it does, maybe they should say that on the front page like a boss yeah their front page is needlessly generic and I'm half guessing based on their dumb videos. it looks like they kind of explain the feature set here http://www.lagomframework.com/documentation/1.0.x/WhatIsLagom.html .
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
im sure this will be just as much of a hit as kotlin is turning out to be
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
kotlin at least has a community of people interested in it . though between Java getting better and the scala community coming out of the desert to commune with society I don't see much of a place for it beyond I guess raising android out of its fair use cesspool
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
FamDav posted:kotlin at least has a community of people interested in it . only jetbrains cares about kotlin
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
FamDav posted:yeah their front page is needlessly generic and I'm half guessing based on their dumb videos. it looks like they kind of explain the feature set here http://www.lagomframework.com/documentation/1.0.x/WhatIsLagom.html . their front page says nothing and looks like this: http://www.novolume.co.uk/blog/all-websites-look-the-same/
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
prefect posted:what does it mean when a programming language is described as "expressive"? It's easy to create noncomposable spaghetti code unless everybody uses your framework, through the use of "advanced" features such as macros and custom syntax.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
basically you can make todomvc in only a few lines
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
i reject that ruby and languages like it are expresssive because expressiveness also includes the ability to express constraints on your code. basically, types and all the things associated with non dynamic languages that give you the ability to make your code more restrictive and safe ARE a very important kind of expression and languages without these features are not expressive, imo.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:i reject that ruby and languages like it are expresssive because expressiveness also includes the ability to express constraints on your code. this post is correct as gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
prefect posted:what does it mean when a programming language is described as "expressive"? lots of sassy answers itt. making GBS threads on plangs aside, it just means a language's syntax with various options to express the same thing like for example, most languages has the "if" statement. ruby also has the "unless" statement, which is basically just "if not" ruby is an extreme case, but you could also say that languages with the "do while" statement are more expressive (in this regard) than languages that doesn't. (eg python is less expressive than c) expressiveness may not be necessarily a good thing, as you can see by people's reaction itt
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:i reject that ruby and languages like it are expresssive because expressiveness also includes the ability to express constraints on your code. that's why people say stuff like "expressive syntax" (ruby) vs "expressive typing system" (ml)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
redundancy is not expressiveness e.g. if not vs unless
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
uh, unless allows me to express things in the most confusing way possible
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
expressiveness is language design buzzword bingo
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
fleshweasel posted:redundancy is not expressiveness e.g. if not vs unless I mostly agree that poo poo like unless is redundant (and annoying when people use it as guards). sometimes it's redundant and bad (python's for-else). sometimes it's... just redundant like do-while and I don't feel anything about it but then there's stuff like foreach which is super great and expressive in a good way. loving off by one errors because I didn't pay enough attention to the index. gently caress indices. but then turbogreybeards hate foreach because it's ~~redundant~~ Symbolic Butt fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
well, for is redundant if you have while, so gently caress what they think also foreach is way better than for so if we have to get rid of one i know which one it should be
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
I'd say expressiveness is at least partially a measure of how much of the language syntax is devoted to the execution (control flow) of the program vs. the specification of the program. Basically, how much of the syntax is for the computer vs how much is for the user. C's expressiveness is low: it lacks any vocabulary to talk about specification at all really. Everything is expressed in terms of what the computer should do next, and the programmer must ensure that whatever the computer is doing meets the intended specification. C++ (and most of its other imperative friends) improve on expressiveness by adding generics, classes, and various other things that don't help the computer execute the program, but do allow the user to say what they mean. Haskell takes it to another level by almost completely abstracting the execution model away and only providing a vocabulary for specification (i.e., nothing in Haskell tells the computer what to do next, only what the program is). APL is the most expressive language there is, I guess. Brainfuck may be the least expressive one that I can think of, because its vocabulary is tiny and completely devoted to the execution model. Languages without static type systems are definitely low on the list as well because you necessarily end up using control flow constructs and unit tests as a substitute for type safety, so your program's specification ends up encoded in a bunch of ways (assertions, if-statements, exceptions) that are directly tied to control flow. Runtime failure is an anomaly of the execution model, so if you're forced to write programs whose specification is encoded that way (or alternatively, not encoded at all), then it's not a very expressive language.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
expressive is a synonym for elegant, it means 'good'
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
two wrong inferences out of two, gj
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
fleshweasel posted:redundancy is not expressiveness e.g. if not vs unless On x86, mov is Turing complete. All other instructions are redundant.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:this post is correct as gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
MrPablo posted:On x86, mov is Turing complete. All other instructions are redundant. How do you do a conditional branch with MOV
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
expressiveness allows me to uniquely express my art (what you call code)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:this post is correct as gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
watch as I artis-anally craft you a code
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
MrPablo posted:On x86, mov is Turing complete. All other instructions are redundant. i've got nand gates, everything else is syntactic sugar
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:How do you do a conditional branch with MOV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EEoWg6Ekk
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:How do you do a conditional branch with MOV you don't it's more like predicated execution, the code path's going to happen no matter what, the compiler swaps in a dummy address base for the operations and they affect a part of the tape you don't care about
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
you still need a branch since the pc isn't nameable on x86. that compiler uses a trapping mov instead, but the trap handler totally executes instructions which are not movs also the trick does not look nearly as cool in at&t syntax
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
I like one instruction machines
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:also the trick does not look nearly as cool in at&t syntax if you're using at&t syntax then you've already gone horribly wrong
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:if you're using at&t syntax then you've already gone horribly wrong operand sizes are pretty nice 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
rjmccall posted:operand sizes are pretty nice true shame about the everything else
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 12:21
|
|