6 ms·
I used to be a fan of multiparadigmatic languages, because hey, I can do anything just the way I want, but then I heard Carmack during Quakecon say: "Languages
by IsTom 13y ago
I used to be a fan of multiparadigmatic languages, because hey, I can do anything just the way I want, but then I heard Carmack during Quakecon say:
"Languages talk about multi-paradigm as if it's a good thing, but multi-paradigm means you can always do the bad thing if you feel you really need to".
Now I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing.
For example in Erlang the garbage collector can assume that only things with lower addresses point to things with higher adresses. Erlang gets it because it says absolute no to mutation in the sequential functional part of the language. Haskell and Ocaml can't do that, they have escape hatches.
- _random_ 13y agoIt's a good thing because with C# I can use functional style where I want safety and imperative where I want performance.
- theseoafs 13y ago> For example in Erlang the garbage collector can assume that only things with lower addresses point to things with higher adresses. Erlang gets it because it says absolute no to mutation in the sequential functional part of the language. Haskell and Ocaml can't do that, they have escape hatches. Why does that matter? Does high-performance gabrage collecting depend on the ordering of objects in memory?
- IsTom 13y agoIt lets you traverse a lot less of memory. It's great for concurrent garbage collection.