5 ms·

> I thought I knew C++, but working with ClickHouse showed me otherwise Only language where you can keep having this realization over and over forever. Of cour

by bhaney 2y ago

> I thought I knew C++, but working with ClickHouse showed me otherwise Only language where you can keep having this realization over and over forever. Of course people prefer lua if they can get away with it.

marcosdumay 2y ago
As a comparison, Haskell is a language where you can keep learning more and more advanced things, forever. But yeah, I guess C++ is the one single language where you can keep learning more and more fundamental things, forever.
- exe34 2y ago
  haskell is great if you enjoy learning haskell. there's always a new build system, a complete redesign of how things are done, etc. i lost the plot around the time everything became an arrow (or was it a lens ?) myself, but I'm sure a few more generations of improvement have happened already!
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Everything never became an arrow. Arrows are a flexible enough abstraction if you are trying to cram some things that the language supports badly into it, like FRP. Also, everything never became a lens.
    - exe34 2y ago
      it just seemed like the tutorials just pivoted from monads to lenses to arrows. but fair enough, I never did "get" haskell. I loved the functional aspect of functional problems (e.g science equations), but once it came to carrying state, everything just turned into a mess for me.
      - marcosdumay 2y ago
        > everything just turned into a mess for me I just want to say, this one is absolutely normal. That's what learning new stuff feels like most of the time. Then, after you pass through it, you go and write a tutorial so other people are spared. But then... I'm not sure this part works :)
        exe34 2y ago
        yeah I look forward to writing my own monad analogy!
tialaramex 2y ago
There are people who just don't know C++ and people who also don't know that they don't know C++ This makes the existence of JTC1/SC22/WG21 aka "The C++ Standards Committee" more akin to the Académie française (which officially defines the French language, but that's not how natural languages actually work) than many C++ proponents seem to grasp.
- kazinator 2y ago
  The analogy isn't very good, because the natural French language isn't a minefield full of undefined behavior. In Linguistics, natural language, and native speaker intuition is the gold standard. The theory of the language is deemed to be wrong where it fails to capture it. So right off the bat we know that a prescriptive institution like Académie française is on linguistic shaky ground; it is not aligned with science. In computing, the specification is the gold standard, followed by documented, committed implementation behaviors.
  - devjab 2y ago
    You don’t have to follow the specification. If enough people don’t, the standard committees will eventually adjust the standards, or, make more standards.
    - kazinator 2y ago
      If enough implementors don't follow the specification, in certain ways, maybe.
  - doctor_eval 2y ago
    > In computing, the specification is the gold standard, followed by documented, committed implementation behaviors. Despite what the ever-so-important solution architects will tell you, a specification is just a theory; its implementation is the practice.
    - kazinator 2y ago
whobre 2y ago
Not that I disagree but ClickHouse code base is especially bad when it comes to readability.

by bhaney 2y ago

marcosdumay 2y ago

As a comparison, Haskell is a language where you can keep learning more and more advanced things, forever. But yeah, I guess C++ is the one single language where you can keep learning more and more fundamental things, forever.

exe34 2y ago
haskell is great if you enjoy learning haskell. there's always a new build system, a complete redesign of how things are done, etc. i lost the plot around the time everything became an arrow (or was it a lens ?) myself, but I'm sure a few more generations of improvement have happened already!
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Everything never became an arrow. Arrows are a flexible enough abstraction if you are trying to cram some things that the language supports badly into it, like FRP. Also, everything never became a lens.
  - exe34 2y ago
    it just seemed like the tutorials just pivoted from monads to lenses to arrows. but fair enough, I never did "get" haskell. I loved the functional aspect of functional problems (e.g science equations), but once it came to carrying state, everything just turned into a mess for me.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      > everything just turned into a mess for me I just want to say, this one is absolutely normal. That's what learning new stuff feels like most of the time. Then, after you pass through it, you go and write a tutorial so other people are spared. But then... I'm not sure this part works :)
      - exe34 2y ago
        yeah I look forward to writing my own monad analogy!

tialaramex 2y ago

There are people who just don't know C++ and people who also don't know that they don't know C++ This makes the existence of JTC1/SC22/WG21 aka "The C++ Standards Committee" more akin to the Académie française (which officially defines the French language, but that's not how natural languages actually work) than many C++ proponents seem to grasp.

kazinator 2y ago
The analogy isn't very good, because the natural French language isn't a minefield full of undefined behavior. In Linguistics, natural language, and native speaker intuition is the gold standard. The theory of the language is deemed to be wrong where it fails to capture it. So right off the bat we know that a prescriptive institution like Académie française is on linguistic shaky ground; it is not aligned with science. In computing, the specification is the gold standard, followed by documented, committed implementation behaviors.
- devjab 2y ago
  You don’t have to follow the specification. If enough people don’t, the standard committees will eventually adjust the standards, or, make more standards.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    If enough implementors don't follow the specification, in certain ways, maybe.
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  > In computing, the specification is the gold standard, followed by documented, committed implementation behaviors. Despite what the ever-so-important solution architects will tell you, a specification is just a theory; its implementation is the practice.
  - kazinator 2y ago

whobre 2y ago

Not that I disagree but ClickHouse code base is especially bad when it comes to readability.