asdasf

10 ms·

31.
by asdasf 13y ago
Odd that you cite Larry Wall given that he thinks haskell is one of the most important languages for any programmer to learn. I always find it weird that people try to use someone famous to support their opinion when that famous person dis
32.
by asdasf 13y ago
>whereas in Ruby, Grooy et al you just do something like: complex_object.to_json So, just like you would in a statically typed language like scala or haskell?
33.
by asdasf 13y ago
>I can't back up my absurd claim with an actual argument, so go google some strawmen for me Really? How does this kind of shit not get downvoted to oblivion?
34.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Edward Kmett is a Haskell evangelist Really? Could you point me to some of his evangelizing? Or did you mean "he uses haskell and is quite happy with it"? Because that isn't the same thing. >inconsistencies that the
35.
by asdasf 13y ago
>I think the general POV the OP is trying to convey is that Scalaz is an incomprehensible cluster fuck of symbols to everyone but those in the know Right, I get that there are lots of scala people who are very anti-intellectual and are v
36.
by asdasf 13y ago
You have to know assembly to be able to understand what you are looking at. Yes, you need to know more than just assembly, but you absolutely need to know assembly.
37.
by asdasf 13y ago
That's a pretty terrible defense of scala. Sounds more like a "I hate some random scala projects for made up reasons". How does scalaz have "colossal snobbism" exactly? Because it contains stuff you haven't
38.
by asdasf 13y ago
I don't think so. We are talking about haskell after all, not haskell + experimental ghc extensions. And which popular extensions break type inference anyways?
39.
by asdasf 13y ago
Who does that? Dynamic type systems don't actually exist, it is simply a lack of a static type system. Nobody argues about dynamic type systems, they argue about whether or not to have a static type system.
40.
by asdasf 13y ago
No. Discussing what static type systems do means discussing what static type systems do. Not pretending static type systems can't do anything java doesn't do. We don't judge dynamic typing by how shitty PHP is for the same
41.
by asdasf 13y ago
That is an argument against particular languages that happen to be statically typed. That is not an argument against static typing, which requires nothing of the sort.
42.
by asdasf 13y ago
The compiler can already infer all the types anyways, you don't need to declare types. It is considered good practice (and -Wall warns for it) to provide types for top level definitions, as they are usually important enough to warrant
43.
by asdasf 13y ago
Maybe 100K LOC in a static language is more difficult to maintain than 100K LOC in a dynamically typed language, but what if the same functionality requires 500K LOC in the dynamically typed language?
44.
by asdasf 13y ago
How very dishonest of you. It actually boils down to "a bunch of common languages do it right, so use one of those instead of java".
45.
by asdasf 13y ago
>in which I make the rather obvious point that all the scaffolding you have to erect in statically typed languages You mean "in which I pose the rather obvious strawman". What scaffolding? What is this mysterious "extr
46.
by asdasf 13y ago
You are just repeating the same old red herring. Actually free software does not restrict anyone's freedom. I understand GNU/communists are insane, it is not a problem of understanding, but one of dishonesty. Pretending public
47.
by asdasf 13y ago
You have to consider everything he says through the lens of "Stephen Wolfram is crazy".
48.
by asdasf 13y ago
apt-get install postfix openldap dovecot I really don't know what the deal is with email, but since the mid 90s there's been this weird thing where everyone wants to follow some kind of step by step guide. But it is just simple s
49.
by asdasf 13y ago
If you are going to say "that's not true at all" you need to present an argument for why I am wrong. You posted something completely irrelevant, and a couple of exploits. There are security vulnerabilities found in all kind
50.
by asdasf 13y ago
Where do people get these misguided notions about email? You don't need dkim or spf at all, few people check either, and they are just to prevent backscatter. Running your own mail server is trivially easy.
51.
by asdasf 13y ago
>The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit. Many do. Any many of them realize they
52.
by asdasf 13y ago
If you have to pose a really terrible strawman to argue for client side templates, you are basically conceding the argument. It is even worse given that moving it to the client doesn't change anything you complained about.
53.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. Then make that argument. Because just saying "I don't like it" over and over is not making any such argument.
54.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Well, strictly speaking, neither one of us can be sure what would happen We could certainly look at the hundreds of projects setting precedent to determine that you are almost certainly wrong. >Is it “FUD” if I still really believe i
55.
by asdasf 13y ago
The apple employees working on it are the minority, that is the point. If apple decided to have their employees work on a closed source fork, they would have less than 25% of the current developers of LLVM/clang working on their compi
56.
by asdasf 13y ago
Why would you post an outright lie like that? Anyone can read the discussion and see multiple mailing list postings from RMS himself confirming the "conspiracy theory" is in fact reality. Quite an odd concept of debunking.
57.
by asdasf 13y ago
The open one would stagnate because it has over 3 times as many developers, writing over 3 times as much code? You seriously think that?
58.
by asdasf 13y ago
No, it is not still true. It was never true. It is pure FUD. Apple has absolutely no way to "close the development" of llvm. Why do GPL zealots still post such crappy FUD even when MIT/BSD/apache/ISC licensed pr
59.
by asdasf 13y ago
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-12/msg00... RMS says "freedom" is worth sacrificing functionality for. GCC is a monolithic mess of shit that is virtually impossible to debu
60.
by asdasf 13y ago
You are the one conflating the technical and political. This has little to do with licenses. GCC is written poorly on purpose in order to make it difficult to work with gcc. They do not want gcc to be used as a typical unix tool, doing s

More ›