runT1ME

39 ms·

391.
by runT1ME 12y ago
You can (and should) use Futures independently of Akka actors. You're correct, hidden mutable state with Actors can be a problem, as with mutable state in general.
392.
by runT1ME 12y ago
> simpler (because that's what your normal code looks like) Actually, no. My code will always look like the for comprehension be it async or not, because my 'get' methods will always return an Either, Option or some other
393.
by runT1ME 12y ago
How does asynchronous futures end up being more complicated or in any way worse than the blocking threaded approach? for { user <- asyncGetUser(1) company <- asyncGeCompany(user.companyid) longresu
394.
by runT1ME 12y ago
Ah, but you are comparing line by line or function by function. Is a 3 line scala for comprehension doing simple mapping more 'readable' than a 10 line java loop? Well, depending on who you ask the answer is either "about
395.
by runT1ME 12y ago
>People change something in their module. They don't test any upstream modules because it's not their problem anymore. If you use any sort of versioning this shouldn't ever cause a problem.
396.
by runT1ME 13y ago
For comprehension is probably Scala's most powerful feature aside from higher kinded types. You may not see the advantage of for comprehension for sequencing a few operations over Future. However, when you have a large number of calls
397.
by runT1ME 13y ago
> for-comprehensions often don't cut it when you're dealing with a Future[Option[User]] and need to pull in their assigned roles from a Future[Seq[Role]]. If you aren't familiar with Monad Transformers, yes, it can be tric
398.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>Perhaps the best way to think about it is to try to come up with a total compensation package with the same expected value (using the company valuation of the last round, or a best-efforts guess if it’s been a long time since the round)
399.
by runT1ME 13y ago
I consider it more important than the standard library. I can't live without it. In version 7 (current), they moved away from using symbolic method names, and now they require 'regular' names, and symbolic method names are
400.
by runT1ME 13y ago
are there features that F# has that scala is missing (aside from reified generics)? Because there are at least a few critical features scala has that F# is missing that influenced my decision on preferred language.
401.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>Having to rewrite all our for loops was not cool. You do realize that Scala doesn't have for loops, right?
402.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>I'd argue that it's lambdas, traits (both now in Java 8), and reduced boilerplate for Java beans Those are the reasons people get in to scala from Java, but not the reason they stay. Implicit conversion/parameters, high
403.
by runT1ME 13y ago
amazing idea but I see a flaw in the 1 or 2 strike policy. Kids are individuals, and what may piss one kid off may not piss another kid off. Is the baby sitter a strict disciplinarian? What if the parents don't want their kids disci
404.
by runT1ME 13y ago
If java was taking things out as it added new things in, then we'd have a good debate on our hands. Alas, they don't seem to be taking this stance, and instead are adding in more and more (just slowly) without removing any of the
405.
by runT1ME 13y ago
Except your argument is invalid because java has continued to add features and keywords to address its flaws. It is moving towards scala, just at an incredibly slow rate.
406.
by runT1ME 13y ago
Nothing changed my worldview as much as this paper did, which I only saw a couple years ago. Less you think I'm some easily impressed fad chasing newb, I've been programming professionally for 13+ years http://ttic.uc
407.
by runT1ME 13y ago
You are invoking a false dilemma here that implies using structured programming methods is not compatible with an agile approach to designing of software.
408.
by runT1ME 13y ago
If you constantly find yourself looking at new frameworks to save time, reduce boilerplate, make development and debugging easier, you may want to acknowledge that it's not the framework at fault, but the language itself...
409.
by runT1ME 13y ago
LinkedIn, Twitter, FourSquare, Netflix, Rackspace, Firebase, Hulu and a ton of others use Scala. How is that dishonest?
410.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>What if you don't test with the right sub-class? What if it's an int, but it's out of the range you expect? Type systems can do all this and more. https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/wiki&#x2
411.
by runT1ME 13y ago
Appendable is more akin to a semi-group than a monoid though, no?
412.
by runT1ME 13y ago
The good arguments for static typing are much different than "I'm a bad programmer". Google "Theorems for free". One of the most life-altering CS papers I've read. :-)
413.
by runT1ME 13y ago
Here's a (web based) pure functional version of the game 'bomber man', the readme should answer your questions. https://github.com/vmarquez/PureBomberMan
414.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>Where do I say such a thing? I'm saying that generics are both overrated and overused. How/why are they overused? How are they overrated? How can you claim there's any benefit to static typing but say generics are overr
415.
by runT1ME 13y ago
> If you have 10mb of numbers that you need to add 1 to immutable state means you now have 20mb of numbers guaranteed You'd only have 20mb of 'numbers' if you needed to keep a reference to the original data structure. Oth
416.
by runT1ME 13y ago
I used to think all abstractions were leaky until someone explained parametric polymorphism and free theorems to me. http://ttic.uchicago.edu/~dreyer/course/papers/wadler.pdf Every programmer or computer scie
417.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>monadic collection operations like map, select, etc There is nothing 'monadic' about select. SelectMany yes, but not Select. That's equivalent to map in other languages.
418.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>The expression problem is much safer solved using virtual classes (using traits and type members) in scala than with case matching. Why do you think this? I prefer having an open trait that's only inherited by ADTs. I can get non-
419.
by runT1ME 13y ago
So why not scala? Scala 8 years ago is where java 8 is now, and you can ignore most of the java frameworks.
420.
by runT1ME 13y ago
>But monads apply functions that also return a wrapped value. Yes, but they also must follow the monad laws. >It should be easy to see why people think the jQuery chain pattern is indeed monadic. It is not easy for me to see. In any o

More ›