mindbat

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   ClojureScript de Jong Attractor(github.com)

   53 points by mindbat 11y ago|10 comments
2. 2.▲
   by mindbat 13y ago

   Can't agree more. I never use rebase; the author's contention that using rebase is a sign that you've f@cked something up is spot on.
3. 3.▲
   by mindbat 14y ago

   Not sure how commuting to a "smart office" is any better than commuting to a regular office. Wouldn't the truly smart thing be to work from home?
4. 4.▲
   by mindbat 14y ago

   I see. You're using function in its mathematical sense, not in terms of programming. Perhaps the article would be clearer if you stated up front that you're trying to talk about the mathematical underpinnings of the functional programming p
5. 5.▲
   by mindbat 14y ago

   "There is [sic] a lot of verbs in FP, but they don't do anything" This is both misleading and false. Functions, by their very nature, "do something." Perhaps you're referring to the immutability of data in a functional language? If so, sa
6. 6.▲
   by mindbat 14y ago

   "Your program isn't about what it does, but about what things are" This is exactly backwards. OOP programming is about what things are. As Steve Yegge put it, functional programming is about verbs, about what your program does to the data p
7. 7.▲
   Show HN: Get automated writing feedback at rewryte.com(rewryte.com)

   1 points by mindbat 14y ago|0 comments