davesims

52 ms·

151.
by davesims 14y ago
"All in all, the sweeping generalization about the concrete languages was introduced by you." I think the plain, direct language of the paper's conclusion is clear enough without me having to embellish it, and without its defenders extrapol
152.
by davesims 14y ago
Get me, still waiting over here for a relevant quote from the paper. I've given mine. Where are yours?
153.
by davesims 14y ago
Can you show how I've misinterpreted the plain language of the conclusion section? I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that in academic papers people tend to mean what they say and choose their language carefully, particularly in th
154.
by davesims 14y ago
>Why can't anyone follow a simple line of reasoning without resorting to fallacies? Indeed. The conclusion C was out of scope with the premises A and B. C is wrong, but that doesn't mean A and B cannot infer useful, more modest conclusi
155.
by davesims 14y ago
> but this is because the study was intended to test the concept of static vs dynamic typing, not particular instances of it Help me out here -- since the study confines itself to a handful of small Python programs translated to an idio
156.
by davesims 14y ago
From the downvotes I can only conclude that many of you wish the study didn't claim what it claims and are merely shooting the messenger. If anyone can point out rhetoric within the study that qualifies it in such a way as to make compari
157.
by davesims 14y ago
> Yeah, no shit. Stop drinking warm coke. Fine, then don't claim something like "All cokes in all contexts at all temperatures are better than all pepsis in all contexts at all temperatures." This is equivalent to what the study does wi
158.
by davesims 14y ago
Had the study qualified itself to merely "Haskell vs. Python" with deference given to the statistical significance of the sample size, you'd have a point. It wasn't me that brought all static typing , which of course includes Java, into th
159.
by davesims 14y ago
>it says nothing even remotely resembling "this benefit applies to all languages with static typing". That is precisely what it says, and that is reiterated later: "...the conclusion can be reached that...in practice [unit testing] is
160.
by davesims 14y ago
I think I should clarify what I meant by "the conclusions are nevertheless trivial." Let's look at the key statement in the conclusion of the study: "Based on these results, the conclusion can be reached that while unit testing can detect s
161.
by davesims 14y ago
> That assumption isn't hidden, it is made up. By you. Not at all. The assumption is clearly implied by the conclusion of the study, which makes an unwarranted equivalence of all languages that have 'static type checking': "The translat
162.
by davesims 14y ago
I like C# these days quite a bit, after ~10 years in both Java and C#, and now ~7 in Ruby, my language preference is Ruby first, then C#. I do a lot of Android development these days too, so I retain a strong connection to Java. But when I
163.
by davesims 14y ago
The sample size of this study is statistically too insignificant to draw the conclusions given. The counterfactuals to the claims of dynamic type advocates were already true and provable, so even if the sample size of the codebases studied
164.
by davesims 14y ago
On the other hand, is it possible that the slew of visually-driven programming environments we've seen in the last 30 years or so, running the gamut from Visual Age to Rational Rose, were novel, innovative, and helpful in many ways, but ult
165.
by davesims 14y ago
Harrison did tweet that he knew Josh: "You're seeing one side @scherrymomin. @endtwist is/was a friend of mine. He found cool facts, I wrote about it & credited 2x, then a 3rd" Also of note, thenextweb pointed out a much less obvious (i
166.
by davesims 14y ago
Interesting to note that exactly a month ago today, thenextweb pointed out a far less egregious or even obvious offense: http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/04/15/netflix-amazon-apple-... "And finally… Nobody likes plagiarism, but an interes
167.
by davesims 14y ago
"This is the classic response." It's classic because it's true . "bugs more fancy..." Fancy? Fancy?? (thumbs through Knuth and SICP looking for "fancy" bugs...looks for "fancy" anti-pattern...) Nope, not there. Consistent with my own exper
168.
by davesims 14y ago
"Ruby is a "me too" on those fronts, and not a particularly novel one." Of course . No one, especially not Matz, ever claimed Ruby was novel. Why should I care whether a language feature is new when I have features to ship? What you seem t
169.
by davesims 14y ago
Adoption.
170.
by davesims 14y ago
You're describing a sub-group of young Valley-centric developers (and the occasional outspoken charismatic CEO), drawn to Rails because of its prominence in the start-up environment. It's simple numbers: since Rails is arguably the most po
171.
by davesims 14y ago
"polyglot programmers that choose the best language for the job" You just described the majority of Ruby coders I've ever worked with. (mentally scrolls work history roster of Ruby devs...) Yeah, in fact you've just described all of them. I
172.
by davesims 14y ago
Sort of -- but not in the same sense that the .NET CLR is MS's own VM, with its own unique bytecode (MSIL code). Dalvik compiles ("dexes") Java bytecode (most of which, except for Android-specific libraries, would run on any JVM) down to
173.
by davesims 14y ago
Again -- and this probably works in your argument's favor -- MS did implement a JDK under a license agreement with Sun, and then violated that agreement by corrupting the JDK specification with incomplete/missing pieces. MS didn't start w
174.
by davesims 14y ago
Oracle/Sun couldn't sue MS for their VM because .NET has nothing do due with Java except some common high-level architectural strategies (bytecode/msil, GC, VM, etc.) that neither company has exclusive claims on. In fact the .NET VM came
175.
by davesims 14y ago
"I've never heard a manager or developer say: If only we had someone that could write an algorithm to solve this travelling sales person problem we'd be saved! No. Inefficient algorithms are often good enough, typical programmers muddle thr
176.
by davesims 14y ago
Or it could be a lot of both. HBO certainly must see the writing on the wall for cable, but it would seem they're not being as aggressive as, say, Netflix in deploying on-demand content. But they are positioning themselves. Why else provi
177.
by davesims 15y ago
FYI: I tried writing a minifier for it, but briefly caused a small quantum singularity to the left of my monitor. CCMin considered harmful.
178.
by davesims 15y ago
Thanks for this! One question -- is " " still global by default or do I still have to declare " " to make " " local?
179.
by davesims 15y ago
Oh Good God, it's true. "We have met the enemy, and he is us." http://ow.ly/ajyBJ
180.
by davesims 15y ago
Yep. Sayre's law has kicked in with a vengeance here. "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

More ›