4 ms·

This article should end with something like, "...and then you find out about arcfide's Co-dfns compiler..." https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns https://github.c

This article should end with something like, "...and then you find out about arcfide's Co-dfns compiler..." https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns You don't have to like it, but the existence of K, et. al. shows that most of us are wasting a huge amount of time and energy using bad tools. These things are so powerful and not that hard to learn.

Nursie 7y ago
It shows no such thing. It shows that you have found something you think you can be productive in and that you like, not that the rest of us are on the wrong track.
- carapace 7y ago
  I can't agree. (BTW, I don't like K, and I don't use it, but if I did I'd like to think I'd be productive in it.) This little system runs circles around entire sub-industries of other software. The fact that it exists and uses one or two orders of magnitude less time and code than other systems is significant. It's like axes vs. chainsaws. If the job is to log a forest the latter will be better than the former.
  - Nursie 7y ago
    Less code is entirely irrelevant unless for some reason you're concerned about a few k of storage for your source, less time appears to be speculation. If people can make working, maintainable software other ways, particularly if those other ways have large, established ecosystems of dependencies, then they are likely doing it right regardless of how much you like apl.
    - carapace 7y ago
      Again, I don't like APL. Less code -> fewer bugs, all other things equal, eh? > large, established ecosystems of dependencies ...are actually a symptom of failure to refactor. Ideally, over time, you code base approaches the Kolmogorov complexity of the problems it solves. > If people can make working, maintainable software other ways ... ...but it takes 10x-100x more code, RAM, CPU power, developer time, etc. than if you hadda used K, then you're leaving money on the table.

Nursie 7y ago

It shows no such thing. It shows that you have found something you think you can be productive in and that you like, not that the rest of us are on the wrong track.

carapace 7y ago
I can't agree. (BTW, I don't like K, and I don't use it, but if I did I'd like to think I'd be productive in it.) This little system runs circles around entire sub-industries of other software. The fact that it exists and uses one or two orders of magnitude less time and code than other systems is significant. It's like axes vs. chainsaws. If the job is to log a forest the latter will be better than the former.
- Nursie 7y ago
  Less code is entirely irrelevant unless for some reason you're concerned about a few k of storage for your source, less time appears to be speculation. If people can make working, maintainable software other ways, particularly if those other ways have large, established ecosystems of dependencies, then they are likely doing it right regardless of how much you like apl.
  - carapace 7y ago
    Again, I don't like APL. Less code -> fewer bugs, all other things equal, eh? > large, established ecosystems of dependencies ...are actually a symptom of failure to refactor. Ideally, over time, you code base approaches the Kolmogorov complexity of the problems it solves. > If people can make working, maintainable software other ways ... ...but it takes 10x-100x more code, RAM, CPU power, developer time, etc. than if you hadda used K, then you're leaving money on the table.