3 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966948 I'll make the same remark I did last time this was posted here (it'

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966948 I'll make the same remark I did last time this was posted here (it's been submitted 3 times in one week): The author starts with this: > I conclude with two implications of this idea: the necessity to accept other people’s preferences without judgment and the importance of finding an environment rewarding your style. And follows it with these two things: > Type theory maximalists should give up their aura of moral and intellectual superiority and accept that they need therapy just as badly as everyone else in the industry (if not more). >> Haskell will still be used in 20 years, because there will always be people looking for a productive way to weaponize their autism. So much for "without judgement".

90s_dev 1y ago
"If I haven't seen it, it's new to me." I'm very happy to see the case being made for static typing. Dynamic types should be niche, and eventually they will be. Rails and Python only made them popular out of a reactionary minimalism thanks to types done wrong in C++ and Java ecosystems. New developers should read articles like this very early on. The more often they're written and posted, the sooner we can all move on from unnecessary type errors.
sshine 1y ago
After writing a lot of Nix in the last year, it has opened me to possibly switch to Scheme. I’ve always been a strong static type guy since 1st year of university, and yes, it ties to perfectionism and even a sense of OCD: if I model the world around me, I can relax. But here’s a take that I’ve been trying to articulate about Nix: it’s not about the static types. Nix is loosely typed, and if there is a functional language that doubles as coping strategy for recreating a quasi-perfect model of the world, it’s Nix. So I believe any strong modelling combined with declarative syntax can be argued is a coping strategy for autism. It’s not strictly the types. It also happens that software made this way is more reliable, breaks less. Maybe the opposition to its use in businesses is that business needs often change rapidly, and tying yourself to any correct understanding of the world means you’re late to the party. (I’ll then argue: there are companies that succeed at strong modelling, and companies that succeed at pivoting, and all companies need a bit of both at different times. That’s why huge companies with scaling problems and infinite runway pick Rust, and startups pick JavaScript.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
wiseowise 1y ago
> So much for "without judgement". Previously author felt enlightened by sneering on stupid normies for not understanding beautiful, clean™, statically typed code. What’s better way to show how better you’re now, that you’ve reached new nirvana, by sneering on ivory tower wizards with their arcane languages that are obviously a sign of autism (because whoever is different from, and possibly smarter than, you is obviously autistic)?
- roman-kashitsyn 1y ago
  Author here. > because whoever is different from, and possibly smarter than, you is obviously autistic I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion from the text I wrote. Autism has nothing to do with intelligence level. BTW, I identify as autistic. And I find Haskell very soothing.

90s_dev 1y ago

"If I haven't seen it, it's new to me." I'm very happy to see the case being made for static typing. Dynamic types should be niche, and eventually they will be. Rails and Python only made them popular out of a reactionary minimalism thanks to types done wrong in C++ and Java ecosystems. New developers should read articles like this very early on. The more often they're written and posted, the sooner we can all move on from unnecessary type errors.

sshine 1y ago

After writing a lot of Nix in the last year, it has opened me to possibly switch to Scheme. I’ve always been a strong static type guy since 1st year of university, and yes, it ties to perfectionism and even a sense of OCD: if I model the world around me, I can relax. But here’s a take that I’ve been trying to articulate about Nix: it’s not about the static types. Nix is loosely typed, and if there is a functional language that doubles as coping strategy for recreating a quasi-perfect model of the world, it’s Nix. So I believe any strong modelling combined with declarative syntax can be argued is a coping strategy for autism. It’s not strictly the types. It also happens that software made this way is more reliable, breaks less. Maybe the opposition to its use in businesses is that business needs often change rapidly, and tying yourself to any correct understanding of the world means you’re late to the party. (I’ll then argue: there are companies that succeed at strong modelling, and companies that succeed at pivoting, and all companies need a bit of both at different times. That’s why huge companies with scaling problems and infinite runway pick Rust, and startups pick JavaScript.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

wiseowise 1y ago

> So much for "without judgement". Previously author felt enlightened by sneering on stupid normies for not understanding beautiful, clean™, statically typed code. What’s better way to show how better you’re now, that you’ve reached new nirvana, by sneering on ivory tower wizards with their arcane languages that are obviously a sign of autism (because whoever is different from, and possibly smarter than, you is obviously autistic)?

roman-kashitsyn 1y ago
Author here. > because whoever is different from, and possibly smarter than, you is obviously autistic I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion from the text I wrote. Autism has nothing to do with intelligence level. BTW, I identify as autistic. And I find Haskell very soothing.