codygman

25 ms·

1. 301.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   Languages such as Haskell which move more logic into the type system are safer. A big reason for this is that the errors are more often than not at compile time. I'm the real world this means you deal with a bug after trying to compile
2. 302.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   I think it's better communicated as "compile-time guarantees that no runtime errors are unaccounted for". Though, that effectively means no runtime errors depending on your definition of runtime error.
3. 303.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   There's a simple way to preserve free speech and have inclusion here: Don't allow any speakers whose beliefs are based on the supremacy of one race.
4. 304.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-car... Googling that blog for slave, race, etc gets you more.
5. 305.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   I sincerely wonder why people are disagreeing with you, assuming the majority of downvotes signify disagreement.
6. 306.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   If I get some extra time I'd love to post a build able Haskell clone of this.
7. 307.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   Don't imply this behavior is welcome in Haskell land!
8. 308.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   Did you try jruby? Makes things much faster.
9. 309.▲
   by codygman 11y ago

   > The compiler does a whole load of checking which can (and therefore should) be automated, which in many other languages is left to the developer. Go code tends to have the property that if it compiles, it probably works as designed. As
10. 310.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Really hope you post this!
11. 311.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    > No, not even Erlang, nor Haskell, nor anything which is remotely close to Turing-complete. So all we can do is, in fact, decrease the attack surface. You often don't even need Turing completeness.
12. 312.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    > Well, I was tempted to mention Haskell. Problem is, I haven't found a practical use for it. That's the same as saying: Well, I was tempted to mention Go. Problem is, I haven't found a practical use for it. That is to say
13. 313.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    It should be read: Avoid (success at all cost) Rather than what you might be (others do at least) implying: (Avoid success at all cost)
14. 314.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Go is nowhere near the middle on a scale between dynamic and super-powerful type systems. I personally almost feel that using Go and super-powerful type system in the same sentence is disingenuous.
15. 315.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    I used to scoff at the use of all these official names (to borrow your phrase), but over time I've found how useful they can be at precise communication. Before I just thought they were pedantic or snobbish.
16. 316.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    How does it compare to the amazingly fast ur/web?
17. 317.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Atom seems pretty nice these days, but why would a competent emacs user switch to atom? Why would a spacemacs user switch to atom? Does it have any advantages?
18. 318.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Are you implying xmonad is slow?
19. 319.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Indeed, I almost never see the Haskell is impractical argument substantiated with proof or even anecdotal evidence.
20. 320.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    I think Haskell can easily be that if you and your team become okay with not writing perfect code. Looking for better ways to redactor in Haskell can be an endless hole, but with discipline I think you can achieve an unparalleled balance. I
21. 321.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    This is a good tutorial for web development with Yesod: https://pbrisbin.com/posts/developing_web_applications_with_... You might want to try using stack instead of cabal though to ensure you avoid any dependency issue
22. 322.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    > PureScript is, for better or worse, no simpler than Haskell as a language, with all of the power of Haskell but its complexity as well Is it really no simpler? A few common complexity complaints i hear about Haskell that don't app
23. 323.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    > went with Go because the libs that I will need (cron like scheduler, embedding assets, etc). Haskell has a cron like scheduler. What do you mean by embedding assets?
24. 324.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    For me Spacemacs is perfect: 7~ years using vim 4 years using emacs enjoyed modal editing in vim, got very good with it enjoyed how easy it was to program/debug emacs tried setting up evil, wasn't up to the task of configuring it
25. 325.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    I really like eyebrowse after just now trying it.
26. 326.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Spacemacs is just a configuration over Emacs and as a result is customizable with elisp as well.
27. 327.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    I'd say try and finish before making further improvements.
28. 328.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    I wanted to create something to authenticate with Gmail and first reached for Google's JavaScript client library, I was shocked to find out they didn't provide the unobsfucated source code. Maybe my expectations are too high, but
29. 329.▲
    Google JavaScript api client not open source(github.com)

    3 points by codygman 11y ago|1 comments
30. 330.▲
    by codygman 11y ago

    Hyperbole (if that is what the commenter was using and didn't seriously think it) should be used carefully when it reinforces stereotypes that are so damaging.