keithasaurus

8 ms·

61.
by keithasaurus 5y ago
I think it's more likely that people start using mypyc for performance-critical code. https://mypyc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
62.
by keithasaurus 5y ago
I'll shamelessly piggy-back here, and note that I'm working on a different type of type-safe validation library for Python here: https://github.com/keithasaurus/koda . I'm nearing an initial release, but
63.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
Yes. In general, I would choose Scala. Better tooling, (pretty good) type system; not without its warts. Main concern I'd see ahead is the 2 -> 3 transition, which has the potential to be as difficult as the Python 2 -> 3 transit
64.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
Having worked at a company with a large Clojure codebase, I just don't see Clojure growing. It's not well-suited to large projects. The dynamic-ness of it and awkward parts of the language (macros, protocols, ambiguity of laziness
65.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
Thanks, that's correct. I often make the mistake of interchanging node for browser js on accident...
66.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
Types still exist in clojure of course, you just have to spend time reasoning about what they may be in any given place. The longer I've worked with clojure, the less I've understood this argument.
67.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
I don't see clojure in the same realm here. Both rust and elm are geared more toward enforcing correctness through their type systems to tame complexity in large projects. In my experience, clojure, being dynamic, fits more as a compar
68.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
> "Tightly binding data and code" allows you to maintain complex invariants via code Not sure I understand what this means. Could you give an example?
69.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
The clojure REPL is nice, don't get me wrong. But I think the reason people rely on it more than in other languages is because of clojure's slow startup time. If you could just make a change and run tests immediately, you'd s
70.
by keithasaurus 6y ago
I agree with most of the points made here, though I think some of the bias toward up-front exhaustive documentation is probably not a good fit for most of the projects I've been a part of. Prototyping often reveals necessary changes du
71.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
My pet theory about the abundance of classes is that they only gained popularity because of their inherent complexity. There's no one, authoritative way to use them, so a bunch of people can went to conferences and wrote papers about S
72.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
Why not start with dependency-less standard lib? Then toolchain?
73.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
> Which is what? Scala? Haskell? OCaml? F#? Typed Racket? Idris? If I want JVM interop, I'd use Scala. Or yeah, as you mention, Kotlin isn't so bad either. For a fun project, I'd use Idris, Haskell, or Rust (of course, man
74.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
Perhaps. I was trying to find something pithy to give as an example. It's difficult to express all the things about spec that feel off to me. I'll try to enumerate some: - verbosity (I think schema does this better https:/&#
75.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
Schema is a pretty nice alternative: https://github.com/plumatic/schema
76.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
When the canonical example of an fdef takes significantly more code than the function itself, I think you have to re-evaluate your approach: https://clojure.org/guides/spec#_specing_functions
77.
by keithasaurus 7y ago
Clojure is a decent language. I've worked with it a good deal in work. But I would take any functional language with types over it. Some thoughts: - its dynamic-ness makes it not suited to large projects IMO. - The currently-accepted a
78.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
At some point ... :)
79.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
Thanks for the detailed issue. Sorry for the trouble! Could you send me the recipe link? I'm unsure know why you'd be hitting the issues you mentioned. I'll try to respond to the issues you raised one-at-a-time: 1. 3.3 grams
80.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
Yeah, I've seen what they do. I like it in some ways. But with user-submitted input, their recipe card system at some point will be insanely wide/large/unwieldy.
81.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
No! We've just had so many that our email server has been backed up! It should come soon. Apologies for the delay!
82.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
It's not proper grammar :) Proper grammar would be "What does the name mean?" It's written this way simply because it's a question I've heard a lot, and when people say it, they usually combine "what"
83.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
Do you mean can you do that in comments? Or are you asking if we can automate a sense of taste? The latter would be extremely difficult. Not sure I understand :)
84.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
Interesting idea. I can think of a few ways it would get complicated pretty quickly, but it's probably 90% doable without too much effort.
85.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
No, but you can fork it for yourself if you want. I think most people that are writing fahrenheit want fahrenheit. However, at some point there will likely be a conversion ability for that.
86.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
There are comments (if enabled by the author). Not sure if issues will make sense? Would you be writing recipes collaboratively?
87.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
What's the case for h-recipe over schema.org's recipe format?
88.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
i like some of the ui ideas on your site. nice work.
89.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
Thanks, but we have our own importer. BTW, I'd suggest writing a metadata fallback in your library. You'd be surprised how many sites will work just on parsing json linked data or schema.org's Recipe format. Good luck!
90.
by keithasaurus 9y ago
those can be handled: 1 | slice bread (blank) | black pepper, to taste Some aspects of the UI/UX still need work. Thanks for the feedback.

More ›