frowaway001

19 ms·

31.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I never seen 1 line/minute in Scala either, but that's not the point. Theoretically, there is nothing stopping you from writing code which will never finish compiling if you have a Turing-complete typesystem.
32.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Sounds more like a JavaEE senior enterprise architect who was concerned that he needed to learn something new, and thankfully found a reason why he does not. :-)
33.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Every turing-complete typesystem can take an unbounded time to compile. Scala is one of those languages with turing-complete typesystems.
34.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> OCaml and Haskell offer very similar functionalities and their compilation times are lightning fast. It took only one sentence to show that you never used OCaml or Haskell, so I'm not sure how serious the rest of your claims shou
35.
by frowaway001 12y ago
For the record, Rasmus Lerdorf is on the core team for PHP. When I said "some_integer_array.at(i)" I certainly didn't mean "rename both things". Alternatively, having one additional magic kind/trait/... to
36.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I don't think you are getting it.
37.
by frowaway001 12y ago
some_integer_array.at(i)
38.
by frowaway001 12y ago
That's exactly what I meant with other bad ideas just snowballed on top of it It still baffles me how people can invent two separate ways to invoke something, () and [], and pretend that's a good idea. If they used [] for
39.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I'd love to know which problems that would have introduced. Rust's choice of <> ignored the lessons from all the language which made that choice before (Java, C#, C++) and from there, other bad ideas just snowballed on top o
40.
by frowaway001 12y ago
With your reasoning bugs would have just stopped existing altogether decades ago. Obviously they haven't.
41.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Yet another Turing tarpit argument?
42.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I'd love if people would stop linking to something which is so obviously wrong (or at least read it before linking). Go devs made it clear that Go won't get Generics, and it's fine.
43.
by frowaway001 12y ago
The Scala team has a large test suite and compiles against more than a million lines of code from published Scala code bases in the wild on regular intervals. They also guarantee that if something compiles against a major version without de
44.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Scala + SBT. Best thing ever.
45.
by frowaway001 12y ago
This reads like a strong case of: http://xkcd.com/538/ > Now, each of those parties is a fully independent company, with its own CEO, own board, own employees and own counter-espionage division. [...] Do you remembe
46.
by frowaway001 12y ago
It helps to know some Java, but it is not required. Using Scala, you will learn the necessary parts of the JVM, without having to deal with Java-the-language too much (which is kind of painful to use after Scala). Plenty companies use Scala
47.
by frowaway001 12y ago
A: Sometimes there is a small price to pay for gracefully unifying OO and FP (for example using sealed trait/case classes for ADTs, instead of having standard OO classes + a special additional ADT feature) But it doesn't really ma
48.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Wow, Googlers being Googlers.
49.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I don't see a problem. Google people use what their NIH-filter-bubble tells them and the rest of the world uses Git(Hub). Everyone is happy.
50.
by frowaway001 12y ago
It might be easier to accept the additional parts of Scala, because the creators didn't design them to be an tacked-on, intentionally horrible feature. (OO in F#/OCaml anyone?) Plus, sane typeclasses and higher-kinded types. :-)
51.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> Nobody, fucking nobody ever, has said "this tool sucks, I think I'll use it exclusively from now on". You obviously don't read the Golang mailing list ... :-)
52.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Well, let's just agree that there is some kind of selection bias in the Go community. Go developers seem to be emphatically content with not using the best tool for the job. That makes sense, otherwise those developers wouldn't ha
53.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> With decent static analysis you could check that the signatures of all types and functions are identical or compatible, I suppose "I suppose"? This has been done for years already. There are even GUIs for that (so that people
54.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> you can't enforce that breaking changes aren't put in 1.4.3 Eh ... why? In some languages, it's standard to run source/binary compatibility checks against new versions and fail a build if the new version doesn'
55.
by frowaway001 12y ago
So how would I write code which works regardless of whether I'm using channels, lists or other applicable structures?
56.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Now make Request and Response generic so that you can tell different requests and responses apart. Then make Future generic so that you can use all the existing combinators out there, like `sequence` which turns `List[Future[Response]]` int
57.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Comparing Go and Node is like asking whether someone wants his paster served with vomit or feces. Yes, some people might prefer one over the another, but asking how they ended up with such a ridiculous issue would be a much better question.
58.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Go has basically none of the mechanisms for sanely creating composable complexity that Scala has. It makes me really grossed out to think about something with the complexity that Finagle exposes as a Go library. Go is
59.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Agree. I also wonder what this inferiority complex "hurr durr, $X is not written in Go, therefore we need to duplicate it in Go!!!" is about ...
60.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Considering this downvoting-because-I-don't-like-being-wrong ... maybe just benchmark it yourself. If you have time for making stuff up and downvoting, then you surely have time to run some benchmarks.

More ›