nightski

921 ms·

3061.
by nightski 15y ago
I hate the tool argument. Programming languages are as much a tool as mathematics or English. I think of them more as a method of communication, a way to express your thoughts and ideas. Not only that but they are executable and unambigu
3062.
by nightski 15y ago
I use emacs. I don't really feel the need to defend it however. But honestly furiously typing is just not correct. Most of it is just muscle memory, not a lot of conscience thought. It takes a lot longer to switch to the mouse and click
3063.
by nightski 15y ago
But that is a good point you make :) Is it maybe not the documentation that matters so much but the semantics communicated through the code itself? Documentation is important, its just how its done today that bothers me. I have been readi
3064.
by nightski 15y ago
Hmm I have come across many a codebase in countless languages where there was no way to discern that type of information from the naming convention. Even accessors in say C# or Java are perfectly legit to do any side effect they want. In
3065.
by nightski 15y ago
While I appreciate your experience, you basically are saying that it would be hellish because of two features. Haskell and/or OCaml have many incredible benefits, and many of them do not rely on laziness to work. Sure it allows you to wri
3066.
by nightski 16y ago
Totally agreed. I did not mean to imply all you need is functions. Just that Haskell allows for much more flexible and correct composition of software (especially when dealing with side effects) solving many of the issues in the OP without
3067.
by nightski 16y ago
I still see that as a composition problem and not one of abstraction.
3068.
by nightski 16y ago
I really do not see how black box abstraction is the problem (in the functional sense). Really I see this more as a problem of composability of software. This is what attracted me to say Haskell in the first place over mainstream object o
3069.
by nightski 16y ago
+1 on dynamic languages, not a fan for this and many other reasons Haskell seems to go a long way towards solving this problem in my humble opinion. Meaning it can have very dense code but as long as you follow the types it is often fairly
3070.
by nightski 16y ago
Sure the bucket isn't doing math, but how else would you describe it? Integration is the word we have come to use to communicate the meaning of what is happening. In other words, math isn't just about understanding. It is about communica
3071.
by nightski 16y ago
Out of curiosity, could you share these weaknesses of functional programming and how OOP solves them? Or at least point me to some material that discusses them? I would be very interested. I have programmed in OOP for over a decade and j
3072.
by nightski 16y ago
First off, I apologize. I was in a horrible mood when I left this post, and you struck a nerve. I appreciate the discussion. I don't understand this dichotomy between needing to ship, and creating quality software. It only exists because
3073.
by nightski 16y ago
I was not just trying to be clever. I feel the subject is very applicable here. But more importantly, the horrific complexity is not due to the solution (it really isn't that complex), but is a rather good demonstration of why Java is a r
3074.
by nightski 16y ago
Meh I spend way more time thinking than I do typing nowadays. Honestly, putting more thought into what you are going to do next, instead of just banging away until it works usually alleviates the issues you mention. Experience helps with
3075.
by nightski 16y ago
So the point is there simply is no way to solve such a problem with solely the data contained in the data set. I wonder then, could a system be developed for capturing the minimal required domain knowledge either in a data set itself, or in
3076.
by nightski 16y ago
These are not clever tricks, they are the mathematical foundation of our profession. Why do you assume the types fail to model the domain intuitively? Have you ever heard of denotational semantics?
3077.
by nightski 16y ago
Why do you dismiss this as dogma and not practical for real world use? I have used similar techniques in everything from bank customer portals to complex embedded systems. Our industry is plagued by bug ridden, crappy software. Please be
3078.
by nightski 16y ago
Great article, wish more developers thought like this. Our industry is so incredibly frustrating with its low barrier to entry. Most programmers won't even come close to appreciating the techniques discussed here.
3079.
by nightski 16y ago
Sequence is only really useful when dealing with computations with side effects. So I have found the value of these diagrams much less as I try to keep the majority of the system referentially transparent. The other huge disadvantage to se
3080.
by nightski 16y ago
I enjoy video games very much, but tend to agree with you. Speaking purely from my own naive experience, for many in America life is simply great. Within the context of my day to day life I cannot say that there are any great struggles. W
3081.
by nightski 16y ago
Wow, and you actually find these books valuable? Any book I read that I truly learn something from usually takes weeks or months to get through. Call me slow but it just takes time for real information to sink in for me. Sure I understan
3082.
by nightski 16y ago
Shiny & new != better. This is pure awesomeness for people looking to write applications on Android that require very high performance and want to minimize the costs in doing so. On top of this, providing a more comprehensive native AP
3083.
by nightski 16y ago
For the typical programmer, maybe. But that is like saying mathematics is a means, not an end. Which is true, but that does not mean there is no value in studying and advancing the field of mathematics!
3084.
by nightski 17y ago
The syntax too complicated bit bugs me. Haskell syntax is very minimal, more lisp like than C like. The syntax is "different" than traditional imperative languages but coming from Lisp/Scheme/F# background it was very easy to pick up. I a