grasleya

4 ms·

1.
by grasleya 9y ago
Functional languages are perfectly capable languages so you can typically use them for anything you'd use any other language for. But if you want a project that specifically showcases functional programming, writing a parser using pars
2.
by grasleya 9y ago
The universe will end before we can decide on 2.7 or 3.
3.
by grasleya 9y ago
I think you can put this more generally as "syntax is not semantics." Go takes some syntactic cues from python (but who doesn't these days?) but its semantics can be pretty different. I think it's pretty common for new p
4.
by grasleya 9y ago
I agree that template metaprogramming can get overly complex. I think it would probably be a mistake to bolt a full C++ template metaprogramming system onto go. But just a standard generics system like Java's would go a long way to imp
5.
by grasleya 9y ago
I can buy using generics sparingly (especially in the form of complex template metaprogramming). But never using it at all? Can you imagine convincing the C++ community to give up Boost because its use of templates is too complex? They also
6.
by grasleya 9y ago
Checked vs unchecked exceptions is kind of a separate thing from exceptions vs no exceptions. There are plenty of modern languages without checked exceptions but few with no exceptions period.
7.
by grasleya 9y ago
More golang Stockholm syndrome. These arguments are always weird to me. Go has plenty of complex features that go developers don't seem to think cause too much cognitive burden (automatic gc, structural subtyping, etc.). Why is it that
8.
by grasleya 9y ago
The catch-all top level error handler isn't typically a hallmark of good design but I think it's pretty relatable as a quick fix when you need to get something working on a deadline.
9.
by grasleya 9y ago
You can code golf in any language and it will probably result in less comprehensible code. If there's one thing I think I agree with the original author on, it's that terseness is not an end unto itself. But I think the overall po
10.
by grasleya 9y ago
A counterpoint is that more declarative code can often remove the need for tedious step by step debugging because the behavior of the code is more transparent. I do most of my work in Haskell and find I don't typically need to debug it
11.
by grasleya 9y ago
This is a hilariously bad take. If we follow the argument to its natural conclusion then go is itself a poor choice of language. After all, go removes memory management boilerplate in favor of an automated gc system. By the author's ar