gclaramunt

7 ms·

31.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
> Ultimately the missing element from the market is rational actors. Love the quote :)
32.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
FWIW, it appears that the software development process in Toyota is pretty screwed, and the bugs that saw the light lately seems to confirm it
33.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
I don't disagree with the cost of context switch and I see value in limiting the work in progress, my argument is against focusing on throughput and measuring it by units of work, and particularly using estimates as the base of the mea
34.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
my problem is that all the manufacturing techniques I saw being attempted in software development assume each "unit" of production is somewhat equivalent but in my experience thats a very rare occurrence.
35.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
In my experience, throughput is never constant... how do you know where is the limit?
36.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
building up with respect to what?
37.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
I don't like kanban either, still manufacturing
38.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
No, I know about pull, Toyota, Lean, and all that. Still manufacturing and production of repeatable widgets... Will you apply the same approach to make a bunch of mathematicians prove a theorem?
39.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
No! No! No! No! WHY?? We spend years saying "software development is not manufacturing", and now it the name of "agile" we allow all this to crept back. Your team is not falling behind, your estimates were wrong!!
40.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
I think is just a matter of editing, the line "It even works with functions:" should probably say something like "It's even the same with functions" as before clearly stated that "let cat: Cat = Animal()"
41.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
If I'm not mistaken, considering the category of subtyping relationship you get exactly that: with the covariant functor you get (in Scala notation) if B <: A then F[B] <: F[A] and with the contravariant functor if B <: A then
42.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
that's peanuts compared to the cost of NOT having the terminal
43.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
curious: what's the underlying computational model for the language? the untyped lambda calculus? universal turing machine ? Or there's something new?
44.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
>But I get the feeling they are trying to be intentionally obtuse, either to show off cleverness or as performance art Same here. I really don't see the point of renaming well known and defined concepts
45.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
That's a communication issue, in our project, we sit our back end devs side to side the front dev ends. "Information must flow".
46.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
Category theory is about abstraction and composition, fundamental tools in software engineering...
47.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
I always find ironically amusing people without a psychology degree invoking Dunning-Kruger to explain things
48.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
agree, there's a difference between "believer" and "gullible". And regarding 2), I suspect a sane dose of skepticism will do more to avoid bad decisions than drinking the company cool-aid
49.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
Is not torture when the good guys do it! Specially when there's a ticking bomb
50.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
And in my experience, for every 10 issues that I realize it might crop up, I know there's also 10 issues that I DON'T realize it might crop up, so I take that into account
51.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
This. Particularly with books, I can decide way faster by picking one, skim the back, index and pages than clicking though lists and "previews". Also, I can scan a whole bookcase in a couple of seconds, not just a list of tittles
52.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
What's wrong with 'bind' ?
53.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
Actually I don't see the post discussing anything, is just feels like "Unsafe is going away, the sky will fall!"
54.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
FTR, I've learned Coq before Haskell
55.
I want you to give up programming(engineering.thetrainline.com)
4 points by gclaramunt 11y ago|6 comments
56.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
Sure, I understand, for some orgs, betting on Haskell is the best choice. What I meant is that they're not using Scala in a small obscure project that nobody cares/know (as most early adoptions of languages are in big companies),
57.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
If you consider Scala functional, I think it wins the popularity contest: used by startups and established companies (Linkedin, Twitter, Meetup, Verizon, Morgan Stanley, Autodesk, HuffPo, etc, etc...) and is not "we use it in a dark co
58.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
That applies to all languages with useful list operations :) (I don't think dynamic has any relation)
59.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
I think is obvious that Wolfram won't use anything that he can't take full credit...
60.
by gclaramunt 11y ago
yeah, and the answer is "No"

More ›