leafboi

16 ms·

61.
by leafboi 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366735
62.
by leafboi 6y ago
OK let's look at reality here. Anything on this earth can be formalized into a mathematical theory. That doesn't mean every formalization is accepted and accredited by academia. This book has like three reviews on amazon and in ge
63.
by leafboi 6y ago
Let's say bob wrote One class and Jane wrote another class and these classes are used in many places around the code base. I'm the programmer that has to compose these classes... You're telling me that I have to change the im
64.
by leafboi 6y ago
It's weird because OOP and Procedural kind of go hand in hand. If you program in Java likely you're doing both procedural and OOP. And the technical definition of OOP isn't formalized either so in some cases you can do FP and
65.
by leafboi 6y ago
>I try to be more aware of it now, and tone down my statements or be more precise on the extent of my criticism, when in the expert side. Who cares. I don't think n00bs are taking what you say and running with it without understandi
66.
by leafboi 6y ago
I doubt it. People aren't as dumb as you describe. Nobody is going to quote me without understanding or agreeing with me. A noob might pick what to learn based off of what I'm saying (learn OOP btw, noob, it's bad but it&#x27
67.
by leafboi 6y ago
One random guy tried to formalize OOP on power point. Did he submit for publication? Or is publication on a random thread on HN good enough?
68.
by leafboi 6y ago
>That's not constructive, because experts also know there's a lot to learn from OO, and not everything about it is bad. Isn't this statement the same? You don't get into the details of who these experts are, what they
69.
by leafboi 6y ago
It's been trendy for about 10 years to love FP and hate on OOP.
70.
by leafboi 6y ago
Basically like when you call something like: Math.abs(-5) That's a library call. A framework is like django or rails. You have to structure your code to fit within django's paradigm, while a library is just utilities you c
71.
by leafboi 6y ago
The content of what you discuss is true there are juniors that argue for it based off of ideology. But the origins of the hate against OOP is not a cultural misunderstanding. I hate OOP and I'm pretty good at both FP and OOP. Well hate
72.
by leafboi 6y ago
And isn't a collection of primitives a grouping in itself? An object is a grouping of primitives. So according to your logic OOP should have the same problem. The real issue isn't grouping. The true nature of abstractions is the f
73.
by leafboi 6y ago
Naming is a superficial issue that is subjective as opposed to a structural problem that is pervasive. The point of the example wasn't to talk about naming. It was to talk about a fundamental structural problem with OOP.
74.
by leafboi 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24358711 OOP only provides illusions of reuse-ability. In reality every component created in OOP takes extra steps and extra glue code to make compose-able. In programming you want to bu
75.
by leafboi 6y ago
>OOP is a superficial lowest common denominator of programming. Everyone can understand on a superficial level (cat is a animal, dog is an animal, cat does meou, dog does bark, kind of thing), and proceed to write programs. That's w
76.
by leafboi 6y ago
What if I told you that OOP only provides illusions of reuseable components and that most OOP components aren't really that reuseable. In order to build reuseable components you need components that compose well. Object composition doe
77.
by leafboi 6y ago
The very definition of pure FP (which is basically just programming founded on the principles of mathematics) rest foundationally on just a program that is immutable and has no side effects. Those are the only two requirements needed to do
78.
by leafboi 6y ago
No my points don't need work. You're just making too many assumptions. First off let's get it out of the way your previous post was about your own moral framework and what you would do when encountering a moral paradox and ho
79.
by leafboi 6y ago
>When you design software focusing only on the business logic and domain the end result will be better than if you have to do it while juggling implementation and performance concerns. Do you have a foundational proof for this? What are
80.
by leafboi 6y ago
You're completely right. There is no theory behind program design and structure. We have no way of measuring why one paradigm is better than another paradigm. This is the first thing that needs to be solved before we can unequivocally
81.
by leafboi 6y ago
In math everything is persistent/immutable anyway, so persistent data structures are a given when working with purely mathematical abstractions. There is a memory issue because of this, but this problem isn't exclusive to FP langu
82.
by leafboi 6y ago
“Bad code that ships is better than good code that doesn't” When you work on code long enough two things will eventually happen: Shippable Bad code will eventually be unshippable. Unshippable Good code will eventually be shippab
83.
by leafboi 6y ago
>theoretically perfect design We have no metric to use to quantitatively score one design as something unequivocally better than another design. This is the first thing you will need before you can prove one "design" is "b
84.
by leafboi 6y ago
> No. That's the heart of it. Everyone dies. You do not save anyone, ever. You're just getting pedantic. I don't care about your personal opinion, but the world agrees logically saving 10 is better than saving 1. Moral par
85.
by leafboi 6y ago
>That is a biased choice, not a logical one. Logical based off of the axiom from spock which is what I'm assuming is something we all agree on. Killing one is better than killing many. We agree on this statement at least. Fault or n
86.
by leafboi 6y ago
On the post it says Haskell is not IDE friendly. It is really hard to make an IDE around Haskell or does it just that it lacks support?
87.
by leafboi 6y ago
Not really. Lots of types though.
88.
by leafboi 6y ago
>How does that even make any sense? You can turn the exact experiment around, there are people who have brain damage to the areas of their brain that let's them reason logically, but they still have intact moral behaviour. I didn&#x
89.
by leafboi 6y ago
Wrong. You're confused. Allow me to explain. Step by step. >This is just a confused article which sets up a dichotomy between reason and brain science. The article sets up an assumed dichotomy that you missed. That dichotomy is mora
90.
by leafboi 6y ago
I try to design my programs like the game of life. I start off with some primitive axioms and build all the high level functions out of a minimal set of primitives.

More ›