nephesh

5 ms·

1.
by nephesh 13y ago
I'm sure productivity skyrocketed /s
2.
by nephesh 14y ago
> Generics would not make the function signatures shorter. You would have to introduce yet another concept: type inference for the signatures of anonymous functions Yes, I should have said type inference obviously. I can't think of a d
3.
by nephesh 14y ago
> With a more complex type (I don't see how this would affect one more than the other) It does because the discussion is about generics. The fact that you're writing out types for one and not the other makes your comparisons a bit disi
4.
by nephesh 14y ago
Now try it on a more complex type. Then try and compose various operations. Then swap out the container type.
5.
by nephesh 14y ago
With this standard for "essential" you may as well just drop down into assembly language. The only added simplicity here is for the compiler writers, not the end users.
6.
by nephesh 14y ago
Yeah, it basically makes the answer to the original question an emphatic "No".
7.
by nephesh 15y ago
Not to disagree, but this type of scenario has become much easier to deal with using iframe's and postMessage ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/window.postMessage ). You can basically setup a client script that is embedded as the widg
8.
by nephesh 15y ago
Yup, I even wrote a framework to convert F# to javascript which allowed me to create a new (really powerful) validation provider for MVC. Sadly I haven't had a real world project that fit it well, so it's kind of gone by the wayside. It's
9.
by nephesh 16y ago
As someone who has been learning Haskell recently I think I can bring up a point that no one else has. Record syntax in Haskell sucks. Most business programming revolves around a form of DDD, where each of your business entities are fairl