3 ms·

Except what you said is not true at all. Whats going on here is you're scoffing at something you don't understand. Before you scoff, understand it. Then scoff.

Except what you said is not true at all. Whats going on here is you're scoffing at something you don't understand. Before you scoff, understand it. Then scoff. Until then you're just as good as the ignorant people who ridiculed the theory of a heliocentric solar system.

moralestapia 7y ago
Nice preconceptions, they truly add to your argument. CT brings nothing new to the table in terms of "now we can do X that we couldn't do otherwise". If you can provide an example to prove its usefulness, please do. Funny thing is that every time it comes down to "just show me" the hand-waving and "you wouldn't get it" begins. Things that work speak for themselves. >you're scoffing at something you don't understand Actually ... I was also very excited by the promise of CT a few years ago and since then I have read a lot about it and I'm quite confident "I understand" what I'm talking about. I've been programming for about 20 years, half of them with functional languages (or languages with first-class functional constructs: lisp, haskell, scala). I have read the most famous books on CT touching on programming, some of them are signed as I have spent my own money going to some CT conferences and meeting with the people there. As a conclusion, I don't mean that CT is useless in itself. It definitely is a nice mathematical framework and has proven a great tool for a few things here and there in different areas of math. But in the context of computer science, as I said it before, it does not bring anything new to the table.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  > CT brings nothing new to the table in terms of "now we can do X that we couldn't do otherwise". You mean that in the "all Turing complete languages are the same"? Because I can't make sense of it with another meaning. If so, you can keep writting web applications in assembly, I guess it's comfortable using something you already know.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21876370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21876370 One example where CT helped me.

moralestapia 7y ago

Nice preconceptions, they truly add to your argument. CT brings nothing new to the table in terms of "now we can do X that we couldn't do otherwise". If you can provide an example to prove its usefulness, please do. Funny thing is that every time it comes down to "just show me" the hand-waving and "you wouldn't get it" begins. Things that work speak for themselves. >you're scoffing at something you don't understand Actually ... I was also very excited by the promise of CT a few years ago and since then I have read a lot about it and I'm quite confident "I understand" what I'm talking about. I've been programming for about 20 years, half of them with functional languages (or languages with first-class functional constructs: lisp, haskell, scala). I have read the most famous books on CT touching on programming, some of them are signed as I have spent my own money going to some CT conferences and meeting with the people there. As a conclusion, I don't mean that CT is useless in itself. It definitely is a nice mathematical framework and has proven a great tool for a few things here and there in different areas of math. But in the context of computer science, as I said it before, it does not bring anything new to the table.

marcosdumay 7y ago
> CT brings nothing new to the table in terms of "now we can do X that we couldn't do otherwise". You mean that in the "all Turing complete languages are the same"? Because I can't make sense of it with another meaning. If so, you can keep writting web applications in assembly, I guess it's comfortable using something you already know.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21876370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21876370 One example where CT helped me.