|
Hollow Talk posted:Lisp is a speech impediment. Lisp is an impediment to communicating ideas clearly?
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
gonadic io posted:haskell is named after a mathematician
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Python is named after a sketch comedy synonymous with insufferable nerds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
perl should be either shot through the heart or abandoned on the bottom of the ocean
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Doom Mathematic posted:Python is named after a sketch comedy synonymous with insufferable nerds. Yeah but that one's actually true
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
swift is named after Taylor Swift, one of the most famous computer security researchers of all time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
swift has elaborate delusions that drag on too long
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:swift has elaborate delusions that drag on too long self-deprecating joke detected? guile is the street fighter character with the coolest hair
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Ochowie posted:I think they try to structure applications in a way that's similar to Rails. Also, in some cases they are opinionated about the stack in a similar way to Rails. I don't think the language is similar at all. a witch posted:I was really turned off by elixir early on (around 0.7). people had an amazing platform and they just used it to reimplement rails. I've never seen any elixir since then outside the context of Phoenix. if you want rails why not use rails? if you want otp why not use Erlang? the default phoenix project structure is superficially rails-like yeah. that said (especially with upcoming generator changes) the community encourages you to structure your overall application as a OTP-app backend with the Phoenix application as a thin layer over that. it is kinda opinionated wrt the stack by default, but just pass "--no-ecto --no-brunch" to the generator and bam, you now have a de-opinionated "hello world" web app as for elixir outside of phoenix, elixir is good at the same stuff as erlang, which basically means servers. and well, right now if you have a server it probably has a component that speaks HTTP and everything else is super easy to write once you know the basics of elixir. as far as "if you want otp why not use Erlang?", elixir is just way nicer to use. the syntax is a million times smoother (not just ruby vs prolog style, but the pipeline operator, protocols, etc.), mix vs rebar, macros, all make for a nicer developer experience. I would 100% use elixir for an otp app over erlang (and in fact, I am - my current project is mainly an otp app with a thin phoenix frontend that depends on the otp app)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Racket is what you turn to after you failed to land a proper job because of your lisp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
elm is an ancient mail reader for ancient greybeards
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
coldfusion is a pathological science
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
java starts off stimulating but long-term exposure leaves you shaking uncontrollably and unable to sleep
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
please don't talk about cf, i'm getting flashbacks to my last job
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Ochowie posted:My main complaint (which could be dead wrong) is that all of the Rails/Django-like applications tend to herd you towards having them serve the UI layer and use the templating tools they provide. Obviously if you're using Elm you're not doing it this way but it seems like that's what the platform wants you to do while I prefer to have the UI and backend be distinct and communicate only via an API layer. well, thats what the beginner tutorials for django do, but I'm not sure a beginner tutorial should do anything else. Probably something like 10% of my Django projects use the django templating layer and the rest of my projects mostly just serve up an API.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Imagine you inherited a sprawling web application everyone uses constantly *and* you know almost nothing about web development *and* aren't even a decent programmer *and* it has lots of exposure to APIs and data sources that change. My main strategy is keeping expectations very low while trying to build own django nightmare replacement for the next guy to inherit. (My experience probably wouldn't be much better if it was a perfect language, to be fair)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
objective-c is wordier than an objectivist
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
AWWNAW posted:Scalia nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such Nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such I'm assuming there's something American politics in this that I'm missing? please red rover me so I can no longer feel inadequate
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:I'm assuming there's something American politics in this that I'm missing? please red rover me so I can no longer feel inadequate SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
c is named after the speed of light because many people think it is the fastest a programming language can be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:when you're saying "x86 decodes to RISC internally anyway" that's not equivalent to "and we'd be better off if it was RISC everywhere!" I'm not saying that we should go RISC everywhere in fact I was arguing the opposite. My point was that RISC is used where its needed and CISC code density is usually much better
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:My point was that RISC is used where its needed
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:i still disagree that ucode is meaningfully called "risc" but it's one of those things idk how to argue such a fine point when everyone uses that label anyway same
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Bognar posted:nobody uses that anymore, they've moved on to Go or such
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:perl should be either shot through the heart or abandoned on the bottom of the ocean i would be a-ok with this if we could get rid of bash at the same time
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:as far as "if you want otp why not use Erlang?", elixir is just way nicer to use. the syntax is a million times smoother (not just ruby vs prolog style, but the pipeline operator, protocols, etc.), mix vs rebar, macros, all make for a nicer developer experience. I would 100% use elixir for an otp app over erlang (and in fact, I am - my current project is mainly an otp app with a thin phoenix frontend that depends on the otp app) I disagree <  >I personally dislike Elixir's syntax (murder anyone who uses parens-free function calls); protocols are nice, pipeline is alright. Rebar was poo poo, but Rebar3 is nice (disclaimer: I'm one of the rebar3 maintainers and am obviously partial), don't want no macros to touch my production code (though they're nice for toys). The big difference between the two is likely going to be community-wise. The Elixir community takes a big focus on web apps and web-related server stuff, whereas Erlang got even more strongly re-centered on infrastructure components (and servers) since Elixir came around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
abigserve posted:Is there a language this thread actually likes because I've never seen anyone post about anything being good, ever (I don't read more than a page back) fwiw people don't tend to hate on haskell that much like, for the academic crowd "avoid success at all costs", well, it did and thus created a really good environment for the whacky stuff and for the more industry crowd, well a whole bunch of stuff owes a debt to it. also pandoc actually works kinda well. java and c# have been improved by people from haskell gradually bringing things over. it's not that haskell doesn't have its faults, but they're kinda upfront about it i think it was spj who drew a chart of languages with axis like useful vs safe and put haskell as trying to push from the uselessly safe into the usefully safe, and in doing so, bringing the unsafe but useful into the same category. haskell isn't a great language but it's been complementary to many others. it's been one of the most successful academic languages, also in a totally unconnected way, microsoft research funded ghc for years
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
yeah I kind of imagine the lang innovation pipeline at microsoft going Haskell -> F# -> C#. I'm kind of very eager about playing with F# (and C#) at the next job
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:(murder anyone who uses parens-free function calls) generally agree with this and it's one of the things I really dislike about elixir. That's what style guides and linters are for though. I also can see how someone would prefer erlang and I can't fault anyone that picks it, especially for hyper-critical infrastructure. while I generally like macros (as long you don't go super nuts with them), I can for sure see avoiding them in some projects (along the lines of "no dynamic allocations" in NASA code or w/e). you're probably right about the difference in the communities, on average. I do love how easy it is to use erlang code from elixir, and if you're serious about elixir you're going to learn how to read erlang anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
afaik current lang status: javascript: it's awful but we have no choice python/ruby/etc: it's awful but the other choice is wrong go: google finally made the fast, cross platform, native language we wanted when we first had java, but learned nothing from java. like generics. honorary plang java/c#: shaggar was right, also heavy amounts of money for tools, docs, and years for third party libraries make a huge difference. swfit/rust/elixir/elm/etc: it's new and we don't know if it is good or bad but it is better i guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
is there a good way to just like, compile java to an executable. like i don't care about bundling it with the runtime, but the only advantage Go seems to have over Java is being able to generate static binaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:is there a good way to just like, compile java to an executable. as far as i am aware it involves more suffering
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:22
|
|