|
if I were concerned about performance why would I be using python?
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Honestly I think that having more ways of doing something usually makes a language richer and more expressive, and I would much rather have many ways of doing something than be forced into something clunky because the natural way isn't "pythonic" or something. Also C++ has its warts but it is a much, much, much, much, much better-designed language than javascript.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:Hm, yes, the design of a language designed to be compiled using a relatively straightforward compiler, to provide low-level access to memory, to provide language constructs that map efficiently to machine instructions, and to require minimal run-time support, can be meaningfully compared to meh I think you can compare the overall design of two languages even if they were designed to do different things. the post I was responding to said that C++ suffers from poor design and feature bloat, and I while you can make a case for both it's pretty ridiculous to imply that c++'s design is bad on the level of js.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:i used to like python and then i figured out haskell is way better the truth
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:I did not imply what you think I implied. Using multiple examples does not imply complete equivalence my bad then nvm
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Shy posted:tcl looks fun but I've never seen anyone actually use it I've used it at work! There is a very popular x-ray spectrum analysis tool whose scripting must be done in tcl for some reason. edit: Arcsech posted:it is not fun VikingofRock fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Deacon of Delicious posted:maybe you should do something important instead, like warn them about 9/11 Yeah thank goodness we sent back john titor instead!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
idk I like monads
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Ploft-shell crab posted:monads is context with values inside
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:I thought we were talking about Perl, not neoliberal economic policy 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Is it still cool to complain about Java's weird OOP fanaticism? Because that's what strikes me whenever I look at Java code.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:General Bit Shift is thataway >>
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:point free rules 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
wait why doesn't swift have namespaces?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:i have absolutely no idea what purpose duck typing serves in a language
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
I don't really understand all the hate for C++'s streams. Is it just that they are not typechecked or is there more?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:when was the last time you got burned by a printf type error? how much time did it take to track down and fix? agreed, no one ever gets bitten by printf errors
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
b0lt posted:i'm pretty sure that literally every single compiler has a non-constant format string warning, and if you're compiling without -Wall -Werror or equivalent you deserve what you get sure, they aren't common anymore but they definitely still happen
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
yeah you definitely want at least -Wall -Wextra (and probably -Wpedantic). Of course none of those contain -Wformat-security. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:shipping source code to customers :S I know this forum likes to shaggar about "open sores" or whatever but this is not an uncommon thing to do?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:"users" should not be compiling anything lol if you've never built something from source
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
fleshweasel posted:no generic types was an incredibly loving stupid decision
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:dynamic typing is great for single developer tiny scripts that you will only ever run once IMO this is the only thing languages like python should be used for Plorkyeran posted:just yesterday i fixed a bug in code with 100% path coverage which would have been prevented by rust's type system, but which even having fixed it i had no idea how i could possibly write a test which would trigger it This sounds pretty interesting--can you share any more details?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:good languages are equally effective for your one-off scripts and your multi-year software projects I didn't mean to imply that good langs shouldn't be used for short scripts. I actually started semi-seriously learning haskell after I saw someone in this thread post some of their haskell CJ scripts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:i think python is great for teaching imperative programming I haven't really looked into either recursion or folds in python, but what makes it particularly hostile towards them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
notorious do you think the . operator should be replaced with `compose`?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:i love the idea of haskell but there are so many obviously terrible ideas celebrated in that community, i can't fuckin bring myself to dive in Notorious B.S.D. you should try Haskell. It's a really nice language and pretty much everything you have complained about in the past page is a sensible decision once you get around to using it. I understand why it wouldn't look that way at first glance though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
EVGA Longoria posted:what if i told you that words and names are a catalogue of symbols we've agreed on a meaning to? whoa
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Athas posted:I maintain a 23k+ SLOC Haskell codebase, and I don't think it defines a single infix operator. While I mostly agree with not defining your own infix operators, I think they can sometimes be pretty nice. For example for the last parser I wrote I defined code:because I think code:is much more concise and every bit as readable as code:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
FamDav posted:why would you write listParserAppend when its over an applicative? Yeah that was actually a pretty poorly-named function. In the context it was written, it takes two parsers-which-output-lists and joins them to create a single parser which outputs those lists concatenated (if both sub-parsers parse successfully), which is where I was coming from. But it should probably be called something like concatenateApplicative or something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:The PL thread: Do you even lift
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Man, what even is the point of functional programming? Every time I see it, I think, "Way to go! You computed a value!" I'm pretty sure that's what all programming does?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
CPColin posted:In Java, I can make lots of things to click on. Well yeah, but that's just your program (plus the OS I guess) computing values for the pixels on the screen, and then updating those computations with new information when you click on something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
CPColin posted:And with functional programming, you compute your one value and you're done. There aren't even any buttons to click on. What a silly thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_reactive_programming
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Here's a cool article about the Option monad in Rust. It's nice seeing monads (and the clean code that they create) getting some play in imperative languages.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Max Facetime posted:just make ?. the default dereferencing operator for nullable values and make foo(object) and object.foo() mean the same thing I agree, it'd be nice if things like Optional could define their own operators to make code using them less verbose and more readable. Personally I would call it >>= instead of ?. but both are good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:why not #8==D instead As an infix operator? I think the 'D' at the end would lead to parsing problems since it's a valid start of an identifier. That's why Haskell won't let you define that as an infix operator, anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
gonadic io posted:
NICE!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Rust has hit 1.0. Top post on the HN thread is a faux apology by some self-serving remora. woohoo 1.0!
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Back on the topic of unary minus, my biggest Haskell pet peeve is the difference between map (+1) [1,2,3] and map (-1) [1,2,3].
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 01:36
|
|