flavio81

62 ms·

631.
by flavio81 9y ago
I can feel your pain, but note that this isn't a fault of dynamic typing per se. This is bad coding (for example, no good use of modules) plus the problem of Javascript itself having many issues; not to mention the wildly different lev
632.
by flavio81 9y ago
I think this has happened for a long time. First (70s), features from Algol-68, like structured programming or better flexibility for data types, were ported to other languages. Then (80s-present), the features from Smalltalk and Lisp start
633.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Is it really? What about templates(as in C++ templates), macros, CSS and HTML? "Lisp macros" go far, far beyond "C macros" ("preprocessor macros", and indeed go far beyond what you can do with C++ templat
634.
by flavio81 9y ago
>There is dynamic and then there is crap dynamic. (...) There is crap static too. Excellent. My point exactly. I have no fear of using a static or dynamic language, as long as it is a good implementation of a statically (or dynamically
635.
by flavio81 9y ago
>What exactly does it mean to have "good dynamic typing facilities"? Picking Common Lisp as an example: (NOTE: Some of the features are also present in good statically typed languages as well, so what I advocate is to use good,
636.
by flavio81 9y ago
>How many ways are there to do something in lisp? Many. That's the whole point -- to let you choose "the way to do something" that applies the best to your circumstances (development time, performance, allowable complexi
637.
by flavio81 9y ago
>What makes you put Python and JS in the same basket here? I'm very well versed in Python (i've delivered two financial software systems done in Python, written entirely by yours truly). However its features and facilities pale
638.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Ruby has some of the best meta-programming facilities out there. Ruby has meta-programming facilities, but they pale compared to the easiness of doing meta-programming in Common Lisp. In Ruby, meta-programming is an advanced topic (see
639.
by flavio81 9y ago
>friendly learning curve To be honest, i love Common Lisp, it might be the most powerful programming language out there, but it's not easy to learn at all. In part because, being a truly multi-paradigm language, you should better ma
640.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Lets be real, when we say dynamic languages, we aren't talking about niche languages like Lisp. How can it be a niche language, if it's an ANSI standard, has more than 8 or 10 fully feature, standard-conformant implementations
641.
by flavio81 9y ago
What amuses me in all "static typing versus..." discussions, is that it usually it is the comparison between two camps: Camp A: Languages with mediocre static typing facilities, for example: -- C (weakly typed) -- C++
642.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Not just, "who the hell uses this", but "where the hell is this defined" as well. On Common Lisp, a dynamic language, I can also get this answered instantly. I just press a key combination on a method call and i jump
643.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Can someone here speak to the notion of a lisp machine in the future? Is there any chance this could happen? Would it be valuable? Yes, of course it would be highly valuable. The reason of the superiority of a Lisp machine is the follow
644.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Makes me wonder: could there be a fully statically typed variant of Lisp? Did anyone try that? FYI: Lisp already allows you to specify data types if you want, as if it were a statically typed language. If you do this, a good Lisp implem
645.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Lisp-2, false NIL, full-powered macros — Common Lisp has a lot going for it. I agree, however my reasons for going towards Common Lisp vs Scheme wouldn't really be those, but basically that important stuff is already standardized,
646.
by flavio81 9y ago
Excellent article. It's time to scream aloud that the emperor has no clothes. This farce has gone too far: Most of the facilites for implementing a web app started as a quick and dirty hack, creating abuse of HTTP Forms, DOM manipulati
647.
by flavio81 9y ago
I love Webassembly, because It will eventually remove Javascript's dominance from the web for good.
648.
by flavio81 9y ago
>What are the best use cases nowadays for Mongo? Prototyping apps with little relational data. Logging.
649.
by flavio81 9y ago
>because of the freedom you get from more similar languages. Is this lack of freedom a good thing?
650.
by flavio81 9y ago
>if you write code that can't be understood by a junior developer Only true for simple apps (i.e., CRUD, etc.)
651.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Having used Flask on two large projects I would never want to use it again, it gives too much freedom Precisely the same reason I chose Flask. >Sqlalchemy is also very slow and complicated and I prefer Django’s less complicated ORM.
652.
by flavio81 9y ago
>from a seemingly well-designed and very conservative study I'd dispute that. As i mentioned above, the sample is "javascript github projects". Github is used, at least in my country, often as scratchpad for bootcamp studi
653.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Juniors needs good tools in order to eliminate potential bugs. Static typing is one of that tool. Yes, I agree fully with you, it is excellent for training. My only gripe is against that "15%" claim and its implications.
654.
by flavio81 9y ago
>SLIME wasn't released until 2003. SLIME replicates the same functionality of the Lisp programming environment of the late 1970s, so most of the features have been available for Lisp long, long ago.
655.
by flavio81 9y ago
Please recall that my claim is for simple type errors. PHP SQL injection attacks, for example, were caused not by type errors but simply by a lack of enough education on how to safely use SQL (i.e. by using prepared statements, etc.) No jav
656.
by flavio81 9y ago
>the value of this empirical study The problem is the sample that this study is looking at. As i wrote above, GitHub is simply a big container of code for literally everybody, so judging kind of bugs produced by looking at what it&#x27
657.
by flavio81 9y ago
Lisp, with SLIME (Lisp IDE tool for Emacs), gives you coding completion with a dynamic language. This isn't exclusive for dynamic languages. However i don't want to debate "static" vs "dynamic". Static typing h
658.
by flavio81 9y ago
>The biggest advantage of static typing(...) or "move method from one class to another class" You are posting about static typing advantages. Please note that the use case you mention would not need too much refactoring in la
659.
by flavio81 9y ago
>They catch 15% of the bugs in Javascript projects on GitHub. Using JS projects in GitHub is a really misleading sample. GitHub is used by all kinds of purposes, for example most coding bootcamps and institutes here tell the students t
660.
by flavio81 9y ago
This is not something that other dynamically typed languages necessarily do Yes, I agree, and this is because Javascript is very weakly typed, and sadly, no tool like Typescript will go so far in counteracting this, because the runtime it

More ›