3 ms·

> have a far easier time debugging in concurrent code I'm unfamiliar with if it's written in Elixir than if it's written in JS/TS, even if the project in quest

> have a far easier time debugging in concurrent code I'm unfamiliar with if it's written in Elixir than if it's written in JS/TS, even if the project in question uses Immutable.js heavily. How much of that comes from belief rather than reality, and potentially some room to grow on your end? I can debug well written code in any language I jump into, but I've found poorly written and hard to debug morasses can be written in any language. Poor naming, branch/loop structuring, scoping, data modeling/normalization, module structuring, logging, and dependency selection/integration have all contributed to debugging hassles far more in my production experience than any particular language.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago
> How much of that comes from a belief rather than reality, and potentially some room to grow on your end? You know… suggesting that someone that they’re delusional and uninformed isn’t a very charitable way to discuss anything online. The belief came from personal experience from 2016-2018 while I was much more experienced with JS/TS and relatively new to Elxir. It definitely influenced me to keep exploring and learning things outside the JS ecosystem I’d previously focused on. I’ve grown as a dev since and so has my appreciation of guaranteed immutability. Also working with other languages, particularly Rust, in the past few years has only further underlined the point. It makes a strict delineation between variables, references and arguments that can be mutated and those that can’t. The language went with 100% guarantees instead of 95% guarantees for a good reason. > I can debug well written code in any language I jump into The phrase “well-written” may be doing a lot of lifting here. Different languages and ecosystems make different practices easy and tend to nudge users in different directions. People who don’t like learning often enjoy the idea that any Turing complete language is equivalent from the programmer’s perspective but it’s just not true.
- yowlingcat 4y ago
  > You know… suggesting that someone that they’re delusional and uninformed isn’t a very charitable way to discuss anything online. I think there's no reason to exaggerate what I said just because I don't love your pet principle as much as you do. Here's what I explicitly describe as being part of well-written (or poorly written) code, which has very little to do with FP vs OOP vs procedural: "Poor naming, branch/loop structuring, scoping, data modeling/normalization, module structuring, logging, and dependency selection/integration" >The phrase “well-written” may be doing a lot of lifting here I think if you read the entire comment, you'd see it doing a lot less lifting because I explicitly detail what "well-written" is. And I think it is cross-language.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago

> How much of that comes from a belief rather than reality, and potentially some room to grow on your end? You know… suggesting that someone that they’re delusional and uninformed isn’t a very charitable way to discuss anything online. The belief came from personal experience from 2016-2018 while I was much more experienced with JS/TS and relatively new to Elxir. It definitely influenced me to keep exploring and learning things outside the JS ecosystem I’d previously focused on. I’ve grown as a dev since and so has my appreciation of guaranteed immutability. Also working with other languages, particularly Rust, in the past few years has only further underlined the point. It makes a strict delineation between variables, references and arguments that can be mutated and those that can’t. The language went with 100% guarantees instead of 95% guarantees for a good reason. > I can debug well written code in any language I jump into The phrase “well-written” may be doing a lot of lifting here. Different languages and ecosystems make different practices easy and tend to nudge users in different directions. People who don’t like learning often enjoy the idea that any Turing complete language is equivalent from the programmer’s perspective but it’s just not true.

yowlingcat 4y ago
> You know… suggesting that someone that they’re delusional and uninformed isn’t a very charitable way to discuss anything online. I think there's no reason to exaggerate what I said just because I don't love your pet principle as much as you do. Here's what I explicitly describe as being part of well-written (or poorly written) code, which has very little to do with FP vs OOP vs procedural: "Poor naming, branch/loop structuring, scoping, data modeling/normalization, module structuring, logging, and dependency selection/integration" >The phrase “well-written” may be doing a lot of lifting here I think if you read the entire comment, you'd see it doing a lot less lifting because I explicitly detail what "well-written" is. And I think it is cross-language.