djedr

18 ms·

121.
by djedr 6y ago
`raw` is more of a type annotation than operator. You can also impose an implicit interpretation of (some of) your data as raw, without a type annotation. A (not necessarily the clearest; this is something I have to work on) description is
122.
by djedr 6y ago
> In all fairness, JSON itself continues to be as simple a format as it ever was. Having schemas is an important adjuct because it frees devs up from constantly translating specs into ad-hoc validation routines that all too often miss so
123.
by djedr 6y ago
Yes, TAO is most likely the most minimal syntax, even more minimal than S-expressions. It has only 3 special symbols: the brackets [] and the grave accent `. They are among the rarest to be found in any kind of text, but at the same time th
124.
by djedr 6y ago
A discussion on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/hyw0d4/tao_a_s...
125.
Show HN: TAO, a simple alternative to XML, JSON, S-expressions(tree-annotation.org)
4 points by djedr 6y ago|3 comments
126.
by djedr 7y ago
> The definition is a portion of a cage built to hold the concept in place so the next mathematician can come along and expend effort to know it. Well put. I'd say this extends beyond mathematics. All definitions are like that.
127.
by djedr 7y ago
Location: Berlin, Germany Remote: yes, have been 10-20 % remote, want to switch to 100 % Willing to relocate: might consider Technologies: Scala, TypeScript, JavaScript, HTML, CSS, Akka, Play, React, open to something new Rés
128.
by djedr 9y ago
Fuzzy words and your opinon, so can't exactly argue with that. But here's a try ;) I take it that the meaning behind the words you used is: clean: no need for `pipe(` prefix and `)` postfix expressive: can convey a
129.
by djedr 9y ago
How about this: let x = pipe(2 , Math.pow(5, ?) , square ) ;)
130.
by djedr 9y ago
If you need names for intermediate results, etc. then you don't want the pipeline operator/function. In such cases the things you say are true. But when you wan't to be more concise, with the operator/function, you can.
131.
by djedr 9y ago
Compare: pipe(initialValue , doSomething , doSomethingElse , reportResults ) Is it really so much more readable with the operator?
132.
by djedr 9y ago
You can also replace all `a |> b` with a fixed arity `pipe2(a, b)` in your code and again, no new operator needed. Anwyay, I don't think such optimization issues are enough to justify adding this operator to JavaScript . In other f
133.
by djedr 9y ago
> You won't be able to type `pipe` with Flow/Typescript. Don't know what you mean by that. > But they can (and had) added support for the |> operator. Doesn't seem like they did: https://github.com&#x
134.
by djedr 9y ago
Sure, but JavaScript is not one of those languages unfortunately.
135.
by djedr 9y ago
The referenced operator proposal advocates the same solution[0] as @yladiz suggested here, so it's not clear to me where did you get this: 2 |> Math.pow(5) |> square from? This would mean the same thing as: Math.pow
136.
by djedr 9y ago
And a native operator can be optimized just about the same amount as a built-in function. So maybe add the function instead of the operator to the language?
137.
by djedr 9y ago
The counter argument would be wrong. The advantage of the operator and the `pipe` helper over regular function composition is that you can emphasize the flow of data through a pipeline of functions. The only advantage in readability I see
138.
by djedr 9y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language) Or even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
139.
by djedr 9y ago
You can define a debug version: const pipe_debug = (...args) => args.reduce((prev, curr) => { console.log('pipe debug; curr:', curr, ', prev:', prev) return curr(prev) }) and when you want to see i
140.
by djedr 9y ago
Readability I would argue is a matter of taste here, so not a very strong argument. As for the second thing, I'd agree, but instead of introducing an operator, we could make the helper a built-in feature.
141.
by djedr 9y ago
I wonder if there is really a need for this operator. Compare 2 |> square |> increment |> square and pipe(2, square, increment, square) where `pipe` is defined as const pipe = (...args) => args.reduce((prev, cu
142.
by djedr 9y ago
Another project, which also uses the idea of atomic CSS classes is Styletron [0]. Perhaps their "introductory blog post" [1] better explains the "why". All in all this has some interesting performance benefits. It may lo
143.
by djedr 9y ago
Some good points. But I think your view has become too negative, perhaps due to your experiences. Or at least I see more hope for visual programming. :) > I think visual programming is one of those ideas that intuitively seems like a goo
144.
by djedr 9y ago
> I don't think it is the paradigm that sucks but the existing implementations...it is a hard design problem to solve. No one has quite figured out the right approach....often the existing implementations make you click and fill out
145.
by djedr 9y ago
> I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Totally agree. I think the major reason visual programming sucks is exactly because some things which are simple to do using text-based programming become way harder when all you can do is
146.
by djedr 10y ago
# Location: Łódź, Poland Remote: yes, anywhere Willing to relocate: possibly Technologies: can learn any professional experience in: JavaScript + Angular 1, Java + Spring, SQL (PostgreSQL and MySQL)