ragnese

36 ms·

421.
by ragnese 5y ago
Ah. Yeah, that could be. I'd still definitely clarify that in the post if that were what they meant.
422.
by ragnese 5y ago
Why does the author keep saying that the original Person definition can crash the app? That's not true, is it? You'll just get races, as far as I know.
423.
by ragnese 5y ago
Buybacks absolutely count under speculation-then-bigger-sucker.
424.
by ragnese 5y ago
My point is that the true believers do want to eventually buy groceries with cryptocurrency. My point is that this conversation is unfair: Person A: I've just invented a new currency! I think it has better intrinsic properties than U
425.
by ragnese 5y ago
Well, of course there are other subtleties involved, but even the money that I pay for a given stock doesn't just go to the company unless it's an IPO. It might indirectly benefit the company because I'm adding to the deman
426.
by ragnese 5y ago
I very much disagree. How many people with 401ks and/or other retirement vehicles actually know what companies they "own"? How many of them vote? How many of them actually have enough of the right kinds of shares to vote? To
427.
by ragnese 5y ago
I don't disagree about weighing pros and cons, of course. But I think that bitcoin advocates would argue that the bitcoin has the same "non-infringing uses that benefit people" and that it's simply a matter of time/
428.
by ragnese 5y ago
Exactly this. Java-the-language is so simple that Java-in-practice is disgustingly littered with verbose patterns to accomplish really basic abstraction concepts, annotations that may or may not work at runtime, and runtime reflection with
429.
by ragnese 5y ago
The difference is that Lisp isn't a programming language- it's a programming language language. ;)
430.
by ragnese 5y ago
Also read as: "This language is so poor at expressing common abstractions that we need to litter our code with not-code so that a compile-time code generation tool can make it tolerable." Though, to be fair, Java finally has recor
431.
by ragnese 5y ago
Node-the-software-project is a feat of engineering. But the API, the client language, the ecosystem, and even the idea are bad, IMO. Bad API example: Tell me how to deal with time zones in Node without pulling in a big third party library
432.
by ragnese 5y ago
Same. Honestly, I only have not-nice things to say about Node, JavaScript, and its ecosystem, so I should probably just shut up. But I was like you- I picked up Node because we had an existing project in it. It only used libraries that had
433.
by ragnese 5y ago
Isn't that pretty much always the dilemma with database stuff and testing? On the one hand, you can wrap your DB operations in some kind of mockable interface(s), and then test your business logic. On the other hand, you really need to
434.
by ragnese 5y ago
The statement is true, IMO. The problem is that ORMs don't ever solve the problem (and I don't believe they CAN). We should only have to care about data and not SQL. But the reality is that we very much do have to care about S
435.
by ragnese 5y ago
To be fair, Sequelize makes itself look like a joke. I normally wouldn't call out an individual library to shit on, because I understand that a lot of work has gone into it. But I used it for years and it was always buggy. Sometimes op
436.
by ragnese 5y ago
If someone said "I tweeted about that" 15 years ago, would you have had a clue? If someone said "I Googled it" 20-whatever years ago?
437.
by ragnese 5y ago
Lame. There's nothing wrong with something being a little bit funny and irreverent. Not everything needs corporate marketing polish. I assumed it was making fun of Twitter. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed that it wasn't i
438.
by ragnese 6y ago
I agree that Java isn't fun or productive, but I'll qualify that statement with "for me". I really do believe that the reason we have programmer holy wars is because we approach problem solving in different ways. The way
439.
by ragnese 6y ago
I know this probably doesn't mean anything, but thank you for following your conscience.
440.
by ragnese 6y ago
First sentence, second paragraph: > Hawking was a huge world-wide celebrity, widely considered by the public and the press to be the modern-day analog of Einstein, dominating the field of theoretical physics. The implied message here and
441.
by ragnese 6y ago
Hawking and his "brand" did immeasurable good for humanity, though. First of all, as the author acknowledges, his work actual scientific work brought huge steps (leaps, even) in the field of cosmology. To say he doesn't stand
442.
by ragnese 6y ago
The process is important, but why is the process important? So you can reach an actual conclusion. Your point about proving vs. disproving has absolutely nothing to do with the statement in question. Both proving and disproving things are
443.
by ragnese 6y ago
I also balked at that statement. Of course the point of science isn't the "quest". Sure, for an individual scientist, the pursuit of knowledge may be enjoyable- and I hope it is. But the "point" of science is to cur
444.
by ragnese 6y ago
What's the data here? Didn't "the government" create the internet, tons of medical research, the interstate highway system, etc? Meanwhile Joe Schmoe bought yet another iPad (which wouldn't exist without the governm
445.
by ragnese 6y ago
The loopholes aren't accidents.
446.
by ragnese 6y ago
For those with experience, would you say that ClojureScript for frontend stands on its own without a Clojure backend?
447.
by ragnese 6y ago
> Are there Java design documents that describe the language in these terms, as opposed to something like "a general-purpose object oriented language"? I'm sure there aren't. And truthfully, I understand that Java was
448.
by ragnese 6y ago
> An object's state is my business, as immutable objects can be used in ways that mutable ones cannot. They can be passed to arbitrary functions with no need for defensive copying. They can also be useful in concurrent programming.
449.
by ragnese 6y ago
Ah! Good point.
450.
by ragnese 6y ago
Yeah, I don't have any real intuition about the performance cost, either. But real-world Haskell problems do fine, as you said. And Haskell has fast-math libraries that, presumably, give you the fast-but-risky C arithmetic. I also agre

More ›