klibertp

250 ms·

2011.
by klibertp 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_and_contravariance_(...
2012.
by klibertp 12y ago
That's utterly wrong comparison! Overall complexity of natural languages is probably HUNDREDS times the one of programming languages. Excluding C++, maybe. And also, with time you begin to be much more efficient in learning languages (
2013.
by klibertp 12y ago
Variance: I suspect it's a subject to similar restrictions as in Haxe: http://haxe.org/manual/type-system-variance.html > That's spooky action at a distance. It breaks modularity, could cause packaging hel
2014.
by klibertp 12y ago
And how is this interesting to anyone other than you?
2015.
by klibertp 12y ago
> I might be wrong, I might be right, but these are the things that came up as bad design most often in different languages. Yes, you are wrong. For every feature you listed and condemned as "bad design" there are examples of l
2016.
by klibertp 12y ago
> Did you read the last two paragraphs? Probably. I mean I skimmed the article, didn't read it very carefully. > That sounds pretty language specific to me. I failed to express myself properly: sure TFA is Clojure-specific, it ta
2017.
by klibertp 12y ago
There's nothing - or very little - language specific here. The idea - as TFA admits - is old and already implemented a few times. Aside from (many) implementations in "esoteric" (Smalltalk, Self, Lisp...) languages, we even h
2018.
by klibertp 12y ago
What? I don't live there, I've never even been to USA so I know nearly nothing I can be spectacularly wrong. However, if even 1/10 of what I read about TSA, Patriot Act, NSA and so on (and on...) is true then I think there is
2019.
by klibertp 12y ago
Dunno, but they sure as hell will try ...
2020.
by klibertp 12y ago
No wonder you make money: charlatans often do. Take homeopathy for example, magic shops, so-called "healers" who manipulate your aura to make your cancer go away. Not to mention all the churches which have a very long tradition of
2021.
by klibertp 12y ago
Output redirected to a file and file being already closed, for one. Or anyway, stdout being closed midway due to many other possible reasons: this is (probably) why printf returns a number of bytes written or -1, for example: http:/&#
2022.
by klibertp 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datalog There are probably more, I just don't know about them.
2023.
by klibertp 12y ago
No, and there's nothing wrong with this. Actually - I didn't read the article very carefully, so I may be completely wrong here - it looks like the OP uses a bit incorrect term. To me it looks like the word he wants is "appli
2024.
by klibertp 12y ago
I recently found this talk: http://www.confreaks.com/videos/1287-rubyconf2012-y-not-adve... which I think it's a good introductory material: it not only derives Y, but starts with introducing all the tools needed
2025.
by klibertp 12y ago
Take a look at these examples: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Y_combinator#Haskell http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Y_combinator#OCaml http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Y_combinato
2026.
by klibertp 12y ago
> just imagine that my Haskell-style syntax I wouldn't otherwise, but after reading this comment I have to ask: why did you use such a syntax instead of Scheme, which is what TFA uses? EDIT: also, I second "The Little Schemer&q
2027.
by klibertp 12y ago
Ok, so I was rather rude unnecessarily, sorry about that. I agree with what you wrote about words: > words can and do have uses in different contexts and you don't get to choose one and make it the exclusive use of the word because
2028.
by klibertp 12y ago
> It is particularly odd to me that the dependents of all instances are stored in a dictionary that is a class variable. Just a note: these are class variables, not class instance variables. Class variables are a strange thing which is a
2029.
by klibertp 12y ago
> I find that talk really painful. I suspect it may be painful in some cases, it's somewhat like a clash of different cultures. The guy is firmly rooted in Smalltalk and Lisp schools of thinking and everything he says is rather obvi
2030.
by klibertp 12y ago
No. You desperately insist on giving them meaning . And sometimes, which is worse, the meaning you want to give them is completely unrelated or even opposed to everything they are or do. Aside: You realize that the word "monad" (
2031.
by klibertp 12y ago
I think most monad tutorials would be quite ok if they didn't use words like "monad", "bind", "return" and so on. It's just stupid to insist on using names which mean nothing or when they mean somethi
2032.
by klibertp 12y ago
> Yeah the web tier is rarely the bottleneck That's not exactly true. For example, as you said, employing a cache may significantly improve performance - essentially to the point where 99% of the time is spent inside framework code
2033.
by klibertp 12y ago
> - add expressions, proper infix support for arithmetic I'd suggest ignoring precedence rules completely here. It generally simplifies the grammar and parser considerably. It doesn't make the language unworkable, either, as lo
2034.
by klibertp 12y ago
And Nimrod, and (Open)Dylan (which I feel really deserves more attention right now, it's far from being dead!). I don't know about Rust, but Elixir, Dylan and Sweet.js have Scheme-style, pattern matching based macro systems while
2035.
by klibertp 12y ago
Some Lisps, some Smalltalks, modern C++ and D, Haskell, Clean, SML, OCaml, Dylan, Rust, Factor, Felix, some (AOT compiled, commercial) Java implementations... and so on. Only very tiny fraction of ideas or implementations are really new in
2036.
by klibertp 12y ago
To be a bit more specific as to where else these ideas are found: * Run regular code at compile time Lisp, of course. Since very long ago. * Extend the language (AST templates and macros); this can be used to add a form of li
2037.
by klibertp 12y ago
There's no such thing as a single "selling point" for Nim. Or rather there are many such points: depending on what programming you do you'll appreciate different language features. Making a list of many (not all of cours
2038.
by klibertp 12y ago
Exactly. This is why I mostly agree with the comment which said that Nim should be advertised directly to Python programmers. Pythonistas have a hard time finding a language which would be faster, lower-level but still elegant, simple and e
2039.
by klibertp 12y ago
> Nim: "no idea what to write here" That's a good point. One could try "faster, safer Python" here, but I agree that it should be discussed and made official, so that anyone seeing Nim's homepage would immed
2040.
by klibertp 12y ago
> focus on improving the language and this will come organically Or not. There are dozens of languages which are good, a couple of decades old, and only known and used by a very small community. They all followed your advice and in effec

More ›