airless_bar

11 ms·

61.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Wrong.
62.
by airless_bar 10y ago
This is utter non-sense. Companies charge as much as they can, they don't follow some altruistic "we love Europe" plan. I understand your point though: Of course it's easier to bask in American exceptionalism than facing
63.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Of course not.
64.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Americans brought the end of antibiotics onto themselves. Even if the world found new antibiotics, their culture is just not amenable to use them responsibly. How to prevent them from spreading their new diseases to the rest of the world? L
65.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Mainstream access to all existing drugs would still be a hugely more favorable outcome than the "chance" of new drugs at outrageous prices.
66.
by airless_bar 10y ago
If course global name-spacing has something to do with it! What's the difference between a "username" resulting in nike/package-name and a package called nike-package-name? Not much in practice. Name-spacing doesn't
67.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Not sure Python is simpler ... except maybe "easier" to move should-be-compile-time failures to run-time. :-)
68.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Let's just see what happens when they get their first court order, which they certainly will (due to their global name-spacing).
69.
by airless_bar 10y ago
> I'm wondering what the use cases for this were, and if they couldn't be achieved in another way. I suggest you click on the link and read the words written on that page.
70.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Please just read the code. I think it's rather amazing that you claim that Eclipse's immutable collections are memory efficient when they either a) completely lack support for many important operations like appending and prependin
71.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Please, really read the code. What you are claiming is wrong, and makes you look like as if you have no clue what you are talking about. While Kotlin addresses the last point I made, it still suffers from: - They cannot be implemented effic
72.
by airless_bar 10y ago
That doesn't make any sense. Did you have a look at how they are implemented in Scala? Nothing is a worse memory hog and GC nightmare than mutable collection behind immutable interfaces. - They cannot be implemented efficiently. - They
73.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Scala tried to do the thing Kotlin invented for years. The effort was abandoned, because it just doesn't work. Mutable collections plus readonly interfaces gives you the worst of all imaginable worlds.
74.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Agree. > developed (after but) independently of RxJava, without inspiration, reinvention, or relation. It's the usual Google style of software development: Thinking they are the smartest people on earth, not needing to even have to
75.
by airless_bar 10y ago
For instance, Kotlin is using the same collections library as Java. So there are no adapters or conversions needed. Scala has its own collection library instead. Years ago Scala tried the same thing Kotlin currently tries to s
76.
by airless_bar 10y ago
Even Scala 2.11 has better Java 8 interop. The main change in 2.12 is that Scala itself uses Java 8 features like default methods and invokydynamic. Using Java 8 has worked with 2.11 for quite some time already.
77.
by airless_bar 11y ago
> How so? Because they never bothered to actually implement the checks to guarantee global uniqueness in GHC? > (EDIT: Just to forestall the inevitable: Yes, there are some weird and dangerous extensions you can enable, but mostly it&
78.
by airless_bar 11y ago
GHC gives you none of the guarantees Kmett keeps boasting about.
79.
by airless_bar 11y ago
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIZxTQP1ifo Now we just need a Haskell compiler which actually bothers to provide the "pretty essential for sanity" for global uniqueness. Currently, I count zero compilers
80.
by airless_bar 11y ago
> What I struggle to understand is: If that functionality is considered useful or even impeding the development process for those developing in Go, why has nobody forked the language to add them? The group of people who are able to fork,
81.
by airless_bar 11y ago
That's exactly what I said.
82.
by airless_bar 11y ago
I think most types for which you would care about type inference in Scala can't even be expressed in Typescript ...
83.
by airless_bar 11y ago
> A lot of JVM-based languages are required to introduce additional complexity in the language to simulate reified generics (e.g. Scala's Manifest/TypeTag classes). I'm not sure how this makes sense. These tags are just st
84.
by airless_bar 11y ago
I prefer to try that myself before coming to such a conclusion. Where is the 1ML compiler? I only found some outdated proof-of-concept 45kB interpreter with version 0.1.
85.
by airless_bar 11y ago
Record and row types are already under consideration for Dotty.
86.
by airless_bar 11y ago
You realize that all of that (except the last point) happened after Scala got traction?
87.
by airless_bar 11y ago
It's not the only way to do first-class modules, it's just the only currently known way where both modular and functional sides are actually useful without introducing completely separate sub-languages. Of course it's a lot h
88.
by airless_bar 11y ago
For instance in http://www.infoq.com/presentations/data-types-issues at 26:26 the topic of mapping modular to functional vs. functional to modular is presented. It wasn't some arbitrary decision, but based on the
89.
by airless_bar 11y ago
See also Improved incremental compilation of #scala in the making yields 10-40x compilation speedups: https://github.com/sbt/sbt/issues/1104#issuecomment-188529825 and After turning on th
90.
by airless_bar 11y ago
I think watching one of the many talks about this topics would answer your assumptions with facts. The "new" 1ML paper is already old, and nothing ever happened. (Which is the core issue of ML: Cool papers, but nothing ever ships.

More ›