3 ms·

I assume you program in assembly language, then? Can’t trust those structured programming types to know best how to manage your instruction pointer after all. “

by wk_end 3y ago

I assume you program in assembly language, then? Can’t trust those structured programming types to know best how to manage your instruction pointer after all. “Functions”, “loops”, “conditionals”, all just fancy words for straitjackets.

vundercind 3y ago
I’d love a demographic study of folks who are really unhappy about languages like Rust and Go specifically because they believe they’re crushing their creative spirit. The “I need MAXIMAL EXPRESSIVENESS at all times! Don’t tell me how to do things!” sort I hesitate to even guess what the findings would look like, but I bet it’d be interesting.
- patrick451 3y ago
  I agree the results would fascinating. The perception from the other side is that rustaceans crave to be bound in the constrictive swaddling of authoritarianism. Which seems to be born out in both the language itself and the foundation.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    “the constrictive swaddling of authoritarianism” is a wild way to describe static analysis.
    - Verdex 3y ago
      I'm pretty much static guarantees to the bone. But I sort of get where the dynamic camp is coming from. With something like python, you need to understand lists, dictionaries, loops, and the call stack. And then you're off to the races. Meanwhile with ocaml you need to understand type theory, type inference, algebraic data types, the module system, maybe row poly, (insert a bunch of other things), and now also algebraic effects. And there's no guarantee that the well formed logic of your domain problem is compatible with the type theory your language is using (although, adt + generics almost always does the job if you take a minute). That being said, the way that's being expressed here does leave something to be desired. Like, if someone doesn't jive well with static techniques that's one thing. But I've never really understood decrying people who get it as suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
      - steveklabnik 3y ago
        I agree that there is a productive discussion to be had about all of these things, including their limits, for sure. Just that this way (my original parent, not you) isn’t it.
        Verdex 3y ago
        Yep, I think we've got the same position. Even though I don't agree with the dynamic camp, I like advocating for it because I think there are scenarios where there is something there. However, the position that the static camp is somehow against freedom and morally wrong is pretty weird to me.
- dartos 3y ago
  I mean, I don’t need maximum expressiveness, but imo languages with nearly over engineered type systems like rust, to me, lack almost any expressiveness without having to get into macros.
tmtvl 3y ago
But when programming in assembly you're still beholden to the CPU designers in regards to out of order execution and branch prediction and all those fancy layers taking runtime control away from you. Better to just print your own silicon.

by wk_end 3y ago

vundercind 3y ago

I’d love a demographic study of folks who are really unhappy about languages like Rust and Go specifically because they believe they’re crushing their creative spirit. The “I need MAXIMAL EXPRESSIVENESS at all times! Don’t tell me how to do things!” sort I hesitate to even guess what the findings would look like, but I bet it’d be interesting.

patrick451 3y ago
I agree the results would fascinating. The perception from the other side is that rustaceans crave to be bound in the constrictive swaddling of authoritarianism. Which seems to be born out in both the language itself and the foundation.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  “the constrictive swaddling of authoritarianism” is a wild way to describe static analysis.
  - Verdex 3y ago
    I'm pretty much static guarantees to the bone. But I sort of get where the dynamic camp is coming from. With something like python, you need to understand lists, dictionaries, loops, and the call stack. And then you're off to the races. Meanwhile with ocaml you need to understand type theory, type inference, algebraic data types, the module system, maybe row poly, (insert a bunch of other things), and now also algebraic effects. And there's no guarantee that the well formed logic of your domain problem is compatible with the type theory your language is using (although, adt + generics almost always does the job if you take a minute). That being said, the way that's being expressed here does leave something to be desired. Like, if someone doesn't jive well with static techniques that's one thing. But I've never really understood decrying people who get it as suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
    - steveklabnik 3y ago
      I agree that there is a productive discussion to be had about all of these things, including their limits, for sure. Just that this way (my original parent, not you) isn’t it.
      - Verdex 3y ago
        Yep, I think we've got the same position. Even though I don't agree with the dynamic camp, I like advocating for it because I think there are scenarios where there is something there. However, the position that the static camp is somehow against freedom and morally wrong is pretty weird to me.
dartos 3y ago
I mean, I don’t need maximum expressiveness, but imo languages with nearly over engineered type systems like rust, to me, lack almost any expressiveness without having to get into macros.

tmtvl 3y ago

But when programming in assembly you're still beholden to the CPU designers in regards to out of order execution and branch prediction and all those fancy layers taking runtime control away from you. Better to just print your own silicon.