TurboHaskal

9 ms·

61.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
The practical use is that it's a programming language for purists or Luddites. You know, the kind of people that like suckless tools, Plan 9, C89, maybe Forth, or even R4RS Scheme. Maybe hate on the latest C++ standard or systemd. Prog
62.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
BPA is fine, but I'm more of a lead poisoning kind of guy.
63.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Germans could be dumb or corrupt. It could also be that they intended to make Russia dependent on them by becoming a customer too essential to lose. These kinds of relationships go both ways. Either way, this made Uncle Sam mad.
64.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
I used it for a while. The recommendation engine needed work, and I felt the social aspect of the whole thing was influencing the music I was listening to. These days, I would go as far as to claim that I grew to despise the figure of the m
65.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
I program in both Lisp and SML/OCaml. I don't think Lisp lives in the latter. For me, Lisp is about power. However, Haskell and other languages that popularized category theory feel like going through the GoF nightmare again.
66.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Ah, the usual thing. I can feel more focused and with increased alertness by fasting, avoiding sugar and taking plenty of stimulants. Now what does this do to the suprarenal glands on the long term? What about TSH? No one cares about that i
67.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
It makes sense to me. The same as claiming that doing `1 + 2` in OCaml is making use of the type system despite me not writing any type information and the language performing type erasure.
68.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Ok, I will try to use Common Lisp without the CLOS: * 123 123 That looks good, let's see... * (describe *) 123 [fixnum] Huh? What's a FIXNUM? * (describe 'fixnum) COMMON-LISP:FIXNUM [symbol]
69.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
You cannot use Common Lisp without the CLOS. The fact that you can delude yourself into thinking that most of the time you don't have a reason to use it is what makes it so great.
70.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Love programming. Never let your boss see you smile while at it.
71.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
A common issue of having a majority of "feature oriented" engineers on your team is that they block any effort to improve the existing codebase, so while you're cranking features out, the code slowly rots and technical debt c
72.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Well, it won't happen. The language is too weird and for a language these days to make it, it has to target the lowest common denominator of developers. Let's say you're at work, and you casually mention to your team somethin
73.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
That looks pretty good honestly! As someone who loves both Lisp and Pascal, I really need to revisit Nim.
74.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Wait why do you even need a filesystem for.
75.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
There is something I saw on the wild here https://github.com/Shinmera/legit/blob/master/repository.lis... which I thought was pretty cool. We all know about memoize, but let's say I want to define a
76.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Is someone willing to go back in time and let comp.lang.lisp know about Rust?
77.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
> Have you seen truck drivers complaining they are forced to > drive old trucks and not brand new Ferraris? No. Where I come from, truck drivers own their own trucks and are pretty happy about them. What they do complain abo
78.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
> There is a lot of disdain for audio-fools: people who go > beyond the entirely defensible "This is what I like" and > enter into counter-factual explanations of why their > preferences constitute truth.
79.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
> If your business doesn't need step 2, then what are we complaining about? Hacky, non automated, low quality, not tested, hard to maintain, slow code. Remember, we are at step 1 of "First do it, then do it right, then do it be
80.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Don't make me remember the Python evangelists back in the day when they were targeting Perl.
81.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Ah, the minimalist software engineer. I usually encounter them in PRs claiming a change is "over-engineered" despite being literally 5 LOC. It's such a comfortable position to label everything you don't understand as com
82.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
They have the same perspective as me: that Lisp is dead. I just wished they didn't go around these threads putting salt on the wound.
83.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
> Programming languages are not that dependent on the number of users as human languages are. But it's still a significant factor. CTOs base their technology choices (languages and libraries) on the popularity of those. Common Lisp
84.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
You really can't read. I'm literally saying technical merits don't matter. Therefore someone asking "if Lisp is so great, why doesn't it get any real world use" in such a thread is doing so in bad faith. Did UN
85.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
There are many in this thread. You can see them if you squint or read between the lines.
86.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
> You're saying a 20 year-old tech interested uni student who is checking out the site for the first time has precisely the same context and knowledge as someone who's been writing in lisp for the last 30 years? No, but the tro
87.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
I know those developers exists, that's why I keep reading such messages in every thread about $dead_lang. I suggest those developers to stick to sites like https://github.com/trending instead of injecting their popular
88.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
These kind of comments _always_ pop up and are either terribly missing the point or written in bad faith. There are many in this thread but I'm replying to yours as it is the one with the most replies. Programming languages aren't
89.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Are you perhaps implying programming languages are chosen on technical merits?
90.
by TurboHaskal 4y ago
Those Smalltalk and Lisp programmers are again at tweaking their running instances in production. Couldn't they just let it crash and relaunch a new ship as is the best practice these days?

More ›