4 ms·

> Your example here is a little on the absurd side don’t you think? While the lack of generics in a language can be annoying for some people it’s not a showstop

> Your example here is a little on the absurd side don’t you think? While the lack of generics in a language can be annoying for some people it’s not a showstopper for most use cases. Whereas removing conditionals would make it a non-starter for most people. I don’t want if-statements at all in my code, if-expressions at the most, but they are strictly worse than pattern matching anyways.

laumars 5y ago
Congratulations on being the exception that demonstrates why I said “most people”. The great thing about our current era is that you have more choices in languages and compilers than you have hours in your life to learn them all. So you can be as fussy as you want and there will still be an ecosystem out there for you. There wasn’t nearly this many choices when I started out in IT. And most of the options that weren’t even free.
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  My company has choices; I don’t. I joined an explicitly Java-centric team (even Scala for some use cases) yet Go is getting harder to avoid.
  - laumars 5y ago
    It’s never been a better time to be a developer with regards to choice of employment and pay so boohoo for your entitled first world problems. Go cry me a river.
- cannabis_sam 5y ago
  > Congratulations on being the exception that demonstrates why I said “most people”. You said it would be a showstopper for most people, suggesting that a lack of if-statements is a fundamental problem that needs to be worked around. I just showed that there exists serious, non-absurd arguments against if-statements, namely that they are strictly inferior to if-expressions, which again are strictly inferior to pattern matching, since they significantly reduces boolean blindness. At some point (or rather for over a 1000 years) “most” people computed π by polygon approximation, but it turns out that method has severe limitations that more modern methods avoid. Should we still have chosen the method that “most” people were familiar with, over applying infinite series to the problem?

laumars 5y ago

Congratulations on being the exception that demonstrates why I said “most people”. The great thing about our current era is that you have more choices in languages and compilers than you have hours in your life to learn them all. So you can be as fussy as you want and there will still be an ecosystem out there for you. There wasn’t nearly this many choices when I started out in IT. And most of the options that weren’t even free.

erik_seaberg 5y ago
My company has choices; I don’t. I joined an explicitly Java-centric team (even Scala for some use cases) yet Go is getting harder to avoid.
- laumars 5y ago
  It’s never been a better time to be a developer with regards to choice of employment and pay so boohoo for your entitled first world problems. Go cry me a river.
cannabis_sam 5y ago
> Congratulations on being the exception that demonstrates why I said “most people”. You said it would be a showstopper for most people, suggesting that a lack of if-statements is a fundamental problem that needs to be worked around. I just showed that there exists serious, non-absurd arguments against if-statements, namely that they are strictly inferior to if-expressions, which again are strictly inferior to pattern matching, since they significantly reduces boolean blindness. At some point (or rather for over a 1000 years) “most” people computed π by polygon approximation, but it turns out that method has severe limitations that more modern methods avoid. Should we still have chosen the method that “most” people were familiar with, over applying infinite series to the problem?